JUDGMENT : Arun Tandon, J. Heard Sri Ramesh Upadhyay Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena Advocate on behalf of the respondent no. 5 and Standing Counsel on behalf of the state respondents. 2. Sri Raghuvar Dayal Pathak Inter College; Jakhan, District Etawah is an institution recognized under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act. The said institution is run and managed in accordance with the approved scheme of administration as contemplated by the provisions of the aforesaid Act. The institution was established by a society registered in the name and style of Sri Raghuvar Dayal Pathak Vidyalaya, Jakhan, Etawah. 3. The dispute in the present writ petition is confined to the exact scheme of administration applicable to the said institution as well as the Committee of Management to be elected in pursuance thereof. Undisputed elections of the office bearers of the society as well as Committee of Management of the institution were held on 28th July, 1996 and in the said elections Sri Krishna Murari Pathak (contesting respondent) was elected as Manager of the Committee of Management. Petitioner Brij Bihari Lal Pathak claims to have been elected as Secretary of the society. While according to the contesting respondent, one Sri Radhey Shyam Pathak was elected as Secretary. 4. According to the petitioner, a resolution was passed by the general body of the society on 22nd June, 1997 to make necessary amendments in the scheme of administration of the Intermediate College. As a consequent thereto the Committee of Management passed a resolution on 15th November, 1998 proposing certain amendments in the scheme of administration and forwarded the same for approval of the Regional Joint Director of Education as required u/s 16-A of the Intermediate Education Act. The proposed amendments were approved by the Regional Joint Director of Education vide order dated 17.3.1999. 5. Respondents, however, in the meantime submitted papers pertaining to the fresh elections of the Committee of Management, which are said to have taken place on 4th July, 1999 on the basis of unamended scheme. The elections dated 4.7.1999 were approved by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 18.8.1999 with the attestation of signatures of contesting respondent. 6. 5. Respondents, however, in the meantime submitted papers pertaining to the fresh elections of the Committee of Management, which are said to have taken place on 4th July, 1999 on the basis of unamended scheme. The elections dated 4.7.1999 were approved by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 18.8.1999 with the attestation of signatures of contesting respondent. 6. Against the said order dated 18.8.1999, Writ Petition No. 36830 of 1999 was filed by the Committee of Management with Sri Brij Bihari Lal Pathak as Manager for quashing the order of District Inspector of Schools. 7. Subsequently the Joint Director of Education by his order dated 5th October, 1999 revoked the order dated 17.3.1999 whereby the amendments in the scheme of administration were earlier approved. Petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 50065 of 1999 against the revocation order. In the said writ petition, the petitioner also set up a claim qua independent elections of the Committee of Management dated 4.7.1999. 8. Both the writ petitions, after exchange of affidavits, were decided under the judgment and order dated 2nd December, 1999 with a direction upon the Joint Director of Education to decide the issue of approval of the amendments proposed in the scheme of administration, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and to decide the rival claim of the Committee of Management with regards to the selection set up by them in the year, 1999. Till such decision, status quo as on 15th September, 1999 was directed to be maintained. 9. In his capacity as alleged Manager of the Committee of Management, petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 43733 of 2002 with the prayer that till decision of the dispute as directed earlier by this Court, a Prabandh Sanchalak be appointed in the institution (the writ petition has been dismissed as infructuous today). 10. In compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court, Joint Director of Education by means of order dated 13th May, 2004 held that the Committee of Management with Sri Krishna Murari Pathak is in effective control of the institution. He further proceeded to record that the order revoking the approval, earlier granted to the amendments proposed in the scheme of administration, was also legal and valid. 11. Against this order of the Joint Director of Education, Sri Brij Bihari Lal Pathak filed Writ Petition No. 21353 of 2004. He further proceeded to record that the order revoking the approval, earlier granted to the amendments proposed in the scheme of administration, was also legal and valid. 11. Against this order of the Joint Director of Education, Sri Brij Bihari Lal Pathak filed Writ Petition No. 21353 of 2004. The writ petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 28.5.2004, the order dated 13.5.2004 was quashed and the Joint Director of Education was directed to decide the controversy afresh in light of the observations made in the judgment. 12. The Joint Director of Education by means of the impugned order dated 6th June, 2005 has held that the approval granted to amendments proposed in the scheme of administration was obtained by fraud and by concealment of material facts. Therefore, the same has rightly been revoked by the Joint Director of Education vide his order dated 5th October, 1999. The Joint Director of Education has further proceeded to record a finding that the Committee of Management with Sri Krishna Murari Pathak was in effective control of the institution (with Reference to the letter dated 9th June, 2002) and is being recognized as such. Lastly it was recorded that since the term of the Committee of Management has expired, the recognized Committee of Management may hold fresh elections for constituting the Committee of Management of the institution. This order of the Joint Director of Education as well as consequential order passed by District Inspector of Schools dated 13.6.2005, attesting the signatures of the contesting respondent, are under challenge in the present writ petition. 13. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that under the Government Order dated 19th December, 2000 the Regional Level Committee alone has the jurisdiction to decide the disputes pertaining to the rival claim of the management and therefore the impugned order having been passed by the Joint Director of Education on his own, is legally not justified. In the alternative, the Joint Director of Education has not recorded any finding with regards to legality of the elections dated 9th June, 2002 set up by Sri Krishna Murari Pathak and therefore there was no occasion to recognize the said Committee of Management. It is stated that the written submissions made by the petitioner before the Joint Direuor of Education have been ignored. It is stated that the written submissions made by the petitioner before the Joint Direuor of Education have been ignored. It has also been pointed out that under the impugned order itself the Joint Director of Education has recorded that he cannot enter into the legality of the members of the general body pleaded by both the parties inasmuch as the power in that regard is vested in the authority under Clause 19 of the scheme of administration and no such dispute has been raised. In view of the said finding alone, it is submitted that unless and until the legality of the electoral college itself is determined, there is no occasion to recognize the elections of the year 2002. 14. Lastly the counsel submits that from the order impugned it is apparently clear that Prabandh Sanchalak was appointed in the institution on 24.12.2002 and therefore the finding to the effect that the Committee with Sri Krishna Murari Pathak as Manager was in effective control prior to the date of the aforesaid order is totally misconceived. Under the judgment and order of this Court dated 2.12.1999 parties were directed to maintain status quo with regards to control over the affairs of the institution till decision of the dispute. 15. On behalf of the respondents it is submitted that the Joint, Director of Education has recorded a finding of fact with regards to amendments, which were earlier got approved fraudulently from the Joint Director of Education. Such findings of fact do not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the elections of the year 1999 as well as 2002 have been held by the answering respondent under the unamended scheme of administration, the same have rightly been accepted by the Joint Director of Education and therefore the entire order passed by the Joint Director of Education calls for no interference. 16. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition. 17. It is not in dispute that Sri Brij Bihari Lai Pathak was the Principal of the institution up to 30th June, 1996. 16. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition. 17. It is not in dispute that Sri Brij Bihari Lai Pathak was the Principal of the institution up to 30th June, 1996. The Joint Director of Education after going through the provisions applicable as well as minutes of the proceedings submitted by Sri Brij Bihari Lal Pathak dated 15.2.1999 (whereby amendments were proposed in the scheme of administration), has come to a conclusion that the resolution so passed is fraudulent and is a case of concealment of material facts which resulted in passing of an order of approval by the Joint Director of Education dated 17.3.1999. On correct facts being on record, the said order has rightly been recalled vide order dated 5.10.1999. Challenge to this part of the order, as made in the present writ petition, only raises disputed question of fact and therefore cannot be a subject matter of consideration in the present writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. Before the Joint Director of Education the legality of the elections of the year 1999 and 2002 was up for consideration. Legality of the elections of the year 1999 would determine the right of the respective parties to hold the elections for the subsequent period commencing from 2002. The legality of the elections of the Committee of Management of the year, 1999 has not been gone into. Even otherwise the Joint Director of Education has held that he cannot enter into the legality of the members who had participated in the elections for constituting the Committee of Management inasmuch as such issues are required to be decided by the authority under Clause 19 of the scheme of administration. Since appropriate proceeding under Clause 19 have not been initiated, the aforesaid issue is left open. 19. In the opinion of the Court, for judging the legality of any elections of the Committee of Management it is but necessary for the Regional Joint Director of Education or Regional Level Committee, as the case may be, to record a finding (for administrative purposes only) as to whether the electoral college which had participated in the elections was validly constituted or not. In absence of any such finding, legality of the elections cannot be adjudicated upon. 20. In absence of any such finding, legality of the elections cannot be adjudicated upon. 20. It is not necessary for this Court to enter into the aforesaid controversy any further inasmuch as it is admitted to the parties that the term of the Committee of Management, elections whereof are said to have been held in the year, 2002, had admittedly expired being three years. Thus, there was no occasion for the Joint Director of Education to recognize any of the Committee of Management as lawfur management for the purposes of holding fresh elections or for being restored back in power on the basis of the election of the year, 1999 or 2002. 21. In the opinion of the Court, it would have been fair and just for the Joint Director of Education to have required the Prabandh Sanchalak, who was already working in the institution under orders assed in earlier writ petition between the parties, to hold fresh lections of the Committee of Management in accordance with the approved scheme of administration; with reference to the order dated 6.6.2005, at the earliest possible. 22. In such circumstances, the part of the impugned order, in so far as it recognizes the Committee of Management with Sri Krishna Murari Pathak as the lawful management and directs said Committee to hold fresh elections, cannot be legally sustained and Is hereby quashed. The consequential order issued by the District Inspector of Schools attesting the signature of Sri Krishna Murari Pathak dated 13th June, 2005 is also quashed. 23. It is directed as follows: The Joint Director of Education shall appoint an independent officer of the Education Department for holding fresh elections of the Committee of Management within 15 days from the date of production of this order. The Election Officer so appointed would publish a tentative list of the members entitled to participate in the elections and shall invite the objections. He shall decide the objections to the tentative list cm voters by means of a reasoned speaking order within four weeks of his appointment. He shall, thereafter, conduct the elections of the Committee of Management in accordance with approved scheme of administration at the earliest. This exercise must be completed within two months. 24. The papers pertaining to the elections so held shall be transmitted to the Joint Director of Education with reference to Government Order dated 19.12.2000 for approval. He shall, thereafter, conduct the elections of the Committee of Management in accordance with approved scheme of administration at the earliest. This exercise must be completed within two months. 24. The papers pertaining to the elections so held shall be transmitted to the Joint Director of Education with reference to Government Order dated 19.12.2000 for approval. At that stage any person, aggrieved by the finalization of the voter list/any illegality. In the procedure adopted by the Election Officer for holding the aforesaid election, may file objections before the Regional Joint Director of Education within 10 days of the election. Regional Level Committee, while considering the approval of the elections so held, shall decide the objections, if any, by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within six weeks of the receipt of the papers. 25. Till validly elected Committee of Management is handed over charge subsequent to the elections, as aforesaid, there shall be single operation of accounts in the institution. This Court has no room to doubt that the authorities, including the Election officer, shall carry out the order passed today with due promptness and will not give a cause of complaint to any of the parties that the time frame fixed has not been followed. 26. Writ petition is partly allowed.