JUDGMENT Honble Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioners have sought the quashing of the order dated 11th June, 2009 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra by which neither the elections held by the petitioner-Committee of Management nor the elections held by the rival Committee of Management of which Nakul Kumar Saxena claims to be the Manager have been recognised and the order dated 23rd January, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools recognizing the petitioner-Committee of Management has been set aside. The Joint Director of Education has further directed the District Inspector of Schools to hold the elections of the Committee of Management from the list of valid members within a period of three months and till such as the elections are not held the Committee of Management recognised on 30th September, 2005 shall manage the Institution. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the order dated 12th June, 2009 by which the signatures of the Manager of this Committee have been attested. 2. The last undisputed election of the Committee of Management of the National Inter College, Bhogaon, Mainpuri (hereinafter referred to as the ‘College’) was held on 30th March, 2005 and it was approved by the Joint Director of Education by the letter dated 30th September, 2005. According to the petitioners, the tenure of the Committee of Management is three years and fresh elections of the Committee of Management were held on 23rd March, 2008 and the proceedings were sent to the office of the District Inspector of Schools by the letter dated 29th March, 2008. Certain queries were sought by the District Inspector of Schools and in view of the subsequent Circular dated 20th October, 2008, under which the District Inspector of Schools is vested with the powers of recognizing the Committee of Management under certain conditions, the District Inspector of Schools recognized the Committee of Management by the order dated 23rd January, 2009 and also attested the signatures of Dr. Swaroop Kishore Jain as the Manager. 3. Swaroop Kishore Jain as the Manager. 3. It is said that respondent No. 4 Nakul Kumar Saxena also forwarded the papers of the rival elections held on 30th March, 2008 to the District Inspector of Schools and also filed Writ Petition No. 23398 of 2009 before this Court for quashing the order dated 23rd January, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools as well as for a direction upon the respondents not to interfere with the functioning of the Committee of Management. This petition was dismissed by this Court on the ground that the petitioners had already represented before the Joint Director of Education who had issued notices to the parties fixing 30th April, 2009. The Court, however, left it open to the petitioner to file a Stay Application before the Joint Director of Education, if he was so advised. 4. The Joint Director of Education ultimately decided the matter by the order dated 11th June, 2009. None of the two elections were recognized and a direction was given to the District Inspector of Schools for holding fresh elections and the order dated 23rd January, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools was set aside. It was further ordered that till fresh elections are held, the Committee of Management which was recognized by the order dated 30th September, 2005 shall continue to manage the College. 5. The Joint Director of Education has given the following reasons in the impugned order dated 11th June, 2009 : (1) According to the report dated 5th May, 2009 submitted by the District Inspector of Schools, two elections had been held. Information regarding the election held on 23rd March, 2008 by the petitioners was received on 29th March, 2009 while information regarding the elections held on 30th March, 2008 by respondent No. 4 was received on 15th May, 2008, 22nd May, 2008 and 4th December, 2008. In such circumstances, the matter should have been referred to the Joint Director of Education. Information regarding the election held on 23rd March, 2008 by the petitioners was received on 29th March, 2009 while information regarding the elections held on 30th March, 2008 by respondent No. 4 was received on 15th May, 2008, 22nd May, 2008 and 4th December, 2008. In such circumstances, the matter should have been referred to the Joint Director of Education. (2) In accordance with the Government Order dated 19th December, 2000, the decision to recognise the elections of the Committee of Management has to be taken by the Regional Level Committee but the District Inspector of Schools kept the matter pending with him for ten months and ultimately recognized the petitioner-Committee of Management and attested the signatures of the Manager on 23rd January, 2009 without considering the rival elections held on 30th March, 2008. Thus, the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 23rd January, 2009 attesting the signatures of the petitioner-Committee deserved to be set aside. (3) In so far as the election held on 23rd March, 2008 is concerned, the notice/information in connection with the elections was published in Dainik Jantantra newspaper but during the hearing, respondent No. 4 produced a document dated 27th May, 2009 issued by the District Information Officer that the publication of the said newspaper had been stopped from the year 2003. The election proceedings held on 23rd March, 2008, therefore, appear to be doubtful. (4) According to the affidavit filed by the Treasurer, the subscription of 102 trustees was not deposited with him. The said trustees were, therefore, not valid members and the election held on 23rd March, 2008 cannot be recognized. Further according to Section 3(2) of the Memorandum of Association there are nine permanent trustees in the Board of Trustees who alone have the power to add additional nine trustees for holding the elections and the election of the office bearers can be held by 18 such trustees but the election was held by 102 members. (5) The election said to be held on 30th March, 2008 cannot also be recognized. 6. I have heard Sri R.K. Ojha learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Saran for respondent No. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has appeared for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 7. (5) The election said to be held on 30th March, 2008 cannot also be recognized. 6. I have heard Sri R.K. Ojha learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Saran for respondent No. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has appeared for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 7. In respect of the first ground, Sri R.K. Ojha learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, in fact, there existed no rival Committee of Management and the papers relating to the petitioner-Committee of Management alone had been forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools but in a clandestine manner respondent No. 4 introduced some papers by showing their receipts through Daftari who was not even authorised to receive the papers. He, therefore, submitted that the view taken by the Joint Director of Education that the matter should have been referred to the Regional Level Committee under the Government Order existing prior to 20th October, 2008 is not correct. It is his submission that under the Government Order dated 20th October, 2008 the District Inspector of Schools was authorised to recognize the Committee of Management and attest the signatures of the Manager and the delay, if any, was caused on account of the queries made by the District Inspector of Schools. 8. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 4 has, however, submitted that a perusal of the order of the Joint Director of Education shows that the District Inspector of Schools in his report had mentioned that the papers of the rival Committee of Management had also been received on 15th May, 2008, 22nd May, 2008 and 4th December, 2008 and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was no rival Committee of Management. 9. The Joint Director of Education in the impugned order has not dealt with the contention of the petitioners that the rival Committee of Management had introduced the papers in a clandestine manner and in fact there existed no rival Committee of Management. 9. The Joint Director of Education in the impugned order has not dealt with the contention of the petitioners that the rival Committee of Management had introduced the papers in a clandestine manner and in fact there existed no rival Committee of Management. The Joint Director of Education has merely referred the report to the District Inspector of Schools that the papers of the rival Committee of Management had been received but he has not examined whether the papers of the rival Committee of Management had actually been received in the office of the District Inspector of Schools or not or whether the Daftari was authorized to receive the papers. The Joint Director of Education has also not examined the conditions mentioned in the Government Order dated 20th October, 2008 under which the District Inspector of Schools could pass orders and only in a cursory manner has set aside the order dated 23rd January, 2009. 10. The second submission of Sri R.K. Ojha learned counsel for the petitioners is that the information regarding the elections had been duly published in the newspaper and merely on the basis of some information supplied by the District Information Officer, the elections could not have been discarded. In the alternative, he submitted that under the bye-laws there was no requirement of publishing the notice in the newspaper and no member had made a complaint that such notice was not given. 11. Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 4, however, submitted that the publication of the newspaper in question had been stopped in the year 2003 which was clear from the letter dated 27th May, 2009 issued by the District Information Officer. 12. The Joint Director of Education has expressed doubts upon the holding of the elections on 23rd March, 2008 only on the ground that information had been received from the District Information Officer about non-publication of the newspaper after 2003. He was required to examine whether the newspaper had actually been published or not and whether notice about election had been communicated by other modes also particularly when no member has made a complaint that the notice was not given. 13. It is also the submission of Sri R.K. Ojha learned counsel for the petitioners that the finding regarding non-payment of subscription by 102 members is incorrect. 13. It is also the submission of Sri R.K. Ojha learned counsel for the petitioners that the finding regarding non-payment of subscription by 102 members is incorrect. It is his submission that the subscription had actually been deposited with the Secretary who is authorized under the bye-laws and the affidavit of the Treasurer is of no consequence. A perusal of the order indicates that the Joint Director of Education in the impugned order has merely relied upon the affidavit filed by the Treasurer without examining the records to find out whether the subscription had actually been deposited by 102 members or not. 14. Sri R.K. Ojha learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the finding recorded by the District Inspector of Schools in connection with Clause III(b) of the Scheme of Memorandum of Association is also incorrect as will be clear from a perusal of the minutes of the meeting held on 23rd March, 2008. Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 4 submitted that there is no infirmity in the finding recorded by the Joint Director of Education. Clause III(1) of the Scheme of Memorandum of the Association is as follows : "III The Board of Trustees. 1 (a) The management of the school shall vest in the board of trustees of nine members consisting of a President, a Vice President, Manager, Secretary and Treasurer and four members. (b) The Board of Trustees will be at liberty to reconstitute a body of at most 18 members including the Trustees. The rest of the members will be elected from amongst the patrons donors contributors and subscribers. The body thus formed will be vested with all the powers of management." 15. A perusal of the meeting held on 23rd March, 2008 shows that out of the 102 members, 68 members were present. The Board of Trustees of nine members was constituted and apart from these nine members, the patrons and donor members had elected the nine additional members. The Election Officer had also informed that these 18 members would elect the 12 members of the Committee of Management. However, only 13 members of the Board of Trustees were present and they elected the 12 members of the Committee of Management and these elected 12 members thereafter elected the various office bearers. The Election Officer had also informed that these 18 members would elect the 12 members of the Committee of Management. However, only 13 members of the Board of Trustees were present and they elected the 12 members of the Committee of Management and these elected 12 members thereafter elected the various office bearers. It is, therefore, clear that the Joint Director of Education has not examined this issue in its correct perspective. 16. Thus, for the reasons stated above, the order dated 11th June, 2009 passed by the Joint Director of Education in so far as it refuses to grant recognition to the elections of the petitioner-Committee of Management held on 23rd March, 2008 cannot be sustained. 17. The last issue which arises for consideration is about the direction given by the Joint Director of Education that till the fresh elections are held, the Committee of Management which was recognized earlier by the order dated 30th September, 2005 shall continue. 18. It is the contention of Sri R.K. Ojha learned counsel for the petitioners that the said directions are contrary to the Full Bench decision in Committee of Management, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College, Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur and another v. Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and others, (2005) 1 UPLBEC 85 . 19. Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 4, however, submitted that in view of the Scheme of Administration, the Committee of Management does not cease to exist even after the expiry of the period for which it is elected and in fact, the term of every office bearer continues till his successor is chosen. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Anjuman Islah Muslim Rajput Khasar-C-Bar, Dil­Darnagar, Dist. Ghazipur and another v. District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur and another, 1982 UPLBEC 648. 20. The Full Bench of this Court in paragraph 37 of the judgment held as follows : “The scheme of the Act provides for Management of the educational institution by a validly elected Committee of Management, in terms of the Scheme of Administration under Section 16-A, which under Section 16-CC is not to be inconsistent with the principles laid down in the Third Schedule. The Committee of Management exercise important statutory functions under the Act and the U.P. Act of 1971. The Committee of Management exercise important statutory functions under the Act and the U.P. Act of 1971. It has been given powers to make ad hoc appointments on Class III posts, determination of seniority, notification of vacancies to the District Inspector of Schools, preparation and submission of salary bills etc. It is also entrusted with the Government funds, for the purposes of maintenance and payment of salaries. Where the persons are not found to be validly elected office-bearers, they cannot be allowed to manage and administer the institution only on the ground that they are in actual physical control over the affairs of the institution. In the circumstances, we hold that where the Regional Deputy Director of Education finds that the elections of both the rival Committees are invalid, he is not required to decide the question of actual control and to recognize one or the other Committees. In such circumstances, where the Scheme of Administration provides for appointment of Administrator (Prabandh Sanchalak), the Dy. Director (or Jt. Director, as the case may be) may appoint an Administrator with direction to hold elections in accordance with the Scheme of Administration, and where there is no such provision he may appoint an Authorised Controller, who shall expeditiously hold elections and manage the affairs of the institution until a lawfully elected Committee of Management is available for taking over the Management.” 21. In view of the aforesaid Full Bench decision of this Court, the Prabandh Sanchalak has to manage the College and hold the elections. The decision in the case of Anjuman Islah (supra) relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, therefore, does not help him. Thus, the directions issued by the Joint Director of Education that the earlier Committee of Management shall continue to manage the Institution till fresh elections are held cannot be sustained. 22. The order dated 11th June, 2009 passed by the Joint Director of Education is, therefore, set aside. The Joint Director of Education shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law and in accordance with the observations made above. However, till such order is passed, the affairs of the College shall be managed by the Prabandh Sanchalak to be appointed by the Joint Director of Education. 23. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above. ———