JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Shri Indra Raj Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.N. Saxena, the learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Shri P.C. Srivastava, the learned counsel for the rival Committee of Management (respondent No. 4), and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent. 2. The outgoing Committee of Management intimated the Authorities that an election of the Committee of Management would be held on 9th of October, 2005. The District Inspector of Schools appointed an Assistant District Basic Shiksha Adhikari as the Observer by an order dated 3rd of October, 2005. The Assistant District Basic Shiksha Adhikari filed a report indicating that the petitioner was elected as the new Committee of Management. One Dr. Awadh Raj Mishra, alleging himself to be the Election Officer, also submitted a similar report indicating that the petitioner was elected as the Committee of Management. The matter came up before the Regional Committee under Section 16-A (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and respondent No. 4 also placed its claim as the valid Committee of Management. The Regional Committee, after considering the material evidence brought on the record, held that the election conducted by the petitioner cannot be given recognition as it was an illegal election and further recognised the election of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as the valid Committee of Management. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. 3. It transpires that there was an earlier round of litigation which was disposed of by an order dated 18th January, 2006 and one such direction was that the election should be strictly held in accordance with the provisions contained in the Bye-laws of the Society. 4. Shri Indra Raj Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Regional Committee, recognising respondent No. 4 as the valid elected Committee of Management was patently erroneous and against the report submitted by the Assistant District Basic Shiksha Adhikari as well as the report of the Election Officer. 4. Shri Indra Raj Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Regional Committee, recognising respondent No. 4 as the valid elected Committee of Management was patently erroneous and against the report submitted by the Assistant District Basic Shiksha Adhikari as well as the report of the Election Officer. The learned counsel has invited the attention to clause 6-Ga (1) and 6-Ga (3) of the Scheme of Administration to indicate that the election was required to be conducted by an Observer appointed by the Educational Authorities, and in that scenario, the learned counsel submitted that whereas the election of the petitioner was conducted under the supervision and observation of the Assistant District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, who was duly appointed by the District Inspector of Schools, on the other hand, the election conducted by the rival Committee of Management had no such Observer, and consequently, the election of the respondent No. 4 cannot be held to be a valid election. 5. On the other hand, Shri P.N. Saxena, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submitted that the Regional Committee was justified in rejecting the election of the petitioner on the ground that the election was conducted from a list of members, which was not given by the outgoing Committee of Management and which was a list submitted by the petitioner themselves to the Assistant District Basic Shiksha Adhikari. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned orders, the Court finds the following facts which is admitted and which is not disputed by either of the parties. 7. The outgoing Committee of Management had submitted a list of 41 members of the Society. An affidavit of the Manager of the outgoing Society has also been filed to indicate that the list of 41 members was the correct list. The Court finds that the Observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools did not accept this list of 41 members and accepted the list of members supplied by the petitioner and conducted the election from that list. The Regional Committee found that since the list supplied by the petitioner was not the authenticated list of the members, the election of the petitioner was wholly illegal. 8. The Regional Committee found that since the list supplied by the petitioner was not the authenticated list of the members, the election of the petitioner was wholly illegal. 8. In my opinion, the finding arrived at by the Regional Committee is perfectly valid and the Regional Committee was justified in not rejecting the election conducted by the petitioner on the basis of a list of the members which was not authenticated by the outgoing Committee of the Management. From a perusal of the order, the Court finds that out of 41 members of list of members, supplied by the outgoing Committee of Management, 25 members were present and who protested before the Assistant District Basic Shiksha Adhikari who did not heed to their request and held the election from the list of members supplied by the petitioner, as a result of which the 25 members conducted a separate election under the supervision of the Election Officer, namely, Shri Surendra Singh, who was appointed by the outgoing President of the Committee of Management. The Regional Committee found that the election conducted by the Election Officer recognising the Committee of Management of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was validly done, and consequently, recognised the said election. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the Scheme of Administration, the election was required to be conducted by the Observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools. 9. Admittedly, the election of respondent No. 4 was not conducted by any Observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools, nor was done in the presence of any person appointed as an Observer by the District Inspector of Schools. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the election of respondent No. 4 was not conducted in the presence of an Observer, the said election cannot be recognised, seems attractive in the first flush, but on a closer scrutiny, the Court is of the opinion that petitioner is not entitled to any relief on account of its conduct. 10. No doubt, the Scheme of Administration requires the election to be held under an Observer appointed by the Education Authority, namely, the District Inspector of Schools. In my opinion, substantial compliance of the provisions of the Scheme of Administration has been done. 10. No doubt, the Scheme of Administration requires the election to be held under an Observer appointed by the Education Authority, namely, the District Inspector of Schools. In my opinion, substantial compliance of the provisions of the Scheme of Administration has been done. This Court is of the opinion that if substantial compliance of the provisions of the Scheme of Administration has been followed, in that event, the election could not be set aside on a mere irregularity in non-compliance of the provisions of the Scheme of Administration. 11. Further, the Court finds that the Observer sent by the District Inspector of Schools had been hijacked by the petitioner, leaving no option for the members to hold the election on their own. The sanctity of this election can be judged by the fact that the said election was conducted and held by an Election Officer who was previously appointed by the President of the outgoing Committee of Management. In paragraph 13 of the writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that the outgoing President Bajrang Das had appointed Dr. A.R. Mishra as the Election Officer, which has been vehemently denied by the respondents in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit stating therein that the outgoing President Bajrang Das had appointed Surendra Singh as the Election Officer. The respondents also annexed a photo copy of the letter issued by the President Bajrang Das. In rejoinder affidavit only a bald denial has been made by the petitioner reiterating the contents of paragraph 13 of the writ petition. Nothing has been said about Annexure 5 to the counter affidavit which was the photo copy of the letter written by the outgoing President appointing Surendra Singh as the Election Officer. 12. Consequently, an irresistible conclusion can be drawn that the duly authorised Election Officer had conducted the election and elected the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as the members of the Committee of Management. The said election has been recognised by the Regional Committee on appreciation of fact which the Court has perused and does not find it to be perverse, and consequently, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. ————