JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The Committee of Management, Inter College Kusmiliya, District Jalaun and Saran Kumar claiming himself to be its Manager have filed this petition for quashing the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 24th December, 2009 by which the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 10th June, 2009 in which Saran Kumar was elected as the Manager has not been approved on the ground that some of the members of the General Body of the Institution were not permitted to participate in the election and, accordingly, the District Inspector of Schools has been directed to initiate steps for appointment of an Authorised Controller in the Institution. 2. It is stated that Inter College Kusmiliya, District Jalaun (hereinafter referred to as the ‘’Institution’) is a recognised and aided educational Institution and is governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘’Act’) and has its own Scheme of Administration. Under the said Scheme of Administration, the Institution is to be managed by a Committee of Management elected in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein for a period of three years. The elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution were earlier held in 2000, 2003 and 2006. The 2006 elections were held on 26th May, 2006 in which Brij Lal was elected as the President and Mishri Lal Paliwal was elected as the Manager. In terms of Clause 9(2) of the Scheme of Administration, the President/Manager is required to declare the date of election meeting two months prior to the completion of the three years term of the Committee of Management, but under Clause 9(1) of the Scheme of Administration, it is also provided that if the date of election is not declared by the President/Manager, six members of the General Body can seek permission from the District Inspector of Schools for holding the fresh election of the Committee of Management. As the President/Manager did not declare the date for holding the meeting, six members of the General Body sought permission from the District Inspector of Schools for holding the election and the District Inspector of Schools by the order dated 8th May, 2009 granted permission for convening a meeting of the General Body for fixing a date of election as well as for appointment of an Election Officer/Presiding Officer to conduct the election. The meeting of the General Body was held on 17th May, 2009 in which the date of election was fixed and the name of the Presiding Officer was also decided and permission was sought from the District Inspector of Schools for holding the election. The District Inspector of Schools by the order dated 29th May, 2009 granted permission for holding the elections on 10/11th June, 2009. 3. This order dated 29th May, 2009 was challenged by the present respondent Nos. 3 to 8 by filing Writ Petition No. 29307 of 2009 (Brij Lal and others v. State of U.P. and others). This petition was finally disposed of by the judgment and order dated 4th June, 2009 with the following directions : “The order so passed by the District Inspector of Schools is being questioned on the ground that electoral college has not been determined in accordance with law and therefore, the entire proceedings of the elections are rendered illegal. It is contended that the last elections of the year 2006 were held from amongst 207 members of the general body, but for the elections which are scheduled to take place on 10/11th June, the majority of such legal and valid members have been excluded and as many as 32 new members have been illegally inducted without they having been enrolled as such in accordance with the approved scheme of administration. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that electoral college has been finalized in accordance with law. Valid and surviving members total whereof is 132, have been declared to constitute the electoral college. It is not necessary for this Court to enter into the merits of the aforesaid issues at this stage of the proceedings, inasmuch as elections of a recognised intermediate college cannot be given effect to unless such elections are approved by the Education Authority for the purpose. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of by providing that after the results of the elections are declared, the election officer shall transmit all relevant papers of the elections through the office to the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner are at liberty to file their objections to the electoral college as well as process of the elections, which is to be completed on 10/11th June, 2009 within one week of the holding of the elections. The petitioner are at liberty to file their objections to the electoral college as well as process of the elections, which is to be completed on 10/11th June, 2009 within one week of the holding of the elections. The competent authority shall permit exchange of documents between the parties and shall thereafter determine the issue of the legality of the elections, including the objections raised on behalf of the petitioner after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the elected office bearers. He shall pass a reasoned speaking order. The aforesaid exercise may be completed within six weeks from the date the papers are so received.” 4. The elections of the Committee of Management were held on 10/11th June, 2009 and the District Inspector of Schools by the order dated 30th July, 2009 approved the elections and attested the signatures of petitioner No. 2 Saran Kumar as the Manager. 5. This order dated 30th July, 2009 was challenged by the present respondent Nos. 3 to 8 in Writ Petition No. 43171 of 2009 on the ground that in all the earlier elections the list of the General Body consisted of 207 members only but a false claim had been set up by Mishri Lal Paliwal, on the basis of fabricated documents, that the meeting of the Committee of Management was held on 28th May, 2008 in which 32 additional members had been enrolled. It was, therefore, asserted that the Presiding Officer published an incorrect final list of voters comprising 137 members even though the elections could have been held only on the basis of the General Body comprising of 207 members excluding such persons who had expired in the meantime. 6. This Writ Petition was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 2nd September, 2009 with the following directions : “In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioners may approach the Regional Level Committee which shall, as noticed hereinabove, take an appropriate decision after hearing the parties concerned including respondent Nos. 5 and 6 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced by the petitioners before the Joint Director of Education who is the Chairman of the Regional Level Committee.” 7. 5 and 6 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced by the petitioners before the Joint Director of Education who is the Chairman of the Regional Level Committee.” 7. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by this Court, the Regional Level Committee took the decision on 24th December, 2009 by which it did not approve the elections held on 10/11th June, 2009 since some of the members of the General Body were not permitted to participate in the election. It is this decision that has been impugned in the present writ petition. 8. The Regional Level Committee has taken note of the fact that the list which had been submitted by the six members of the General Body to the District Inspector of Schools consisted of 163 names in which persons from Serial Nos. 1 to 98 are the members of the Society while from Serial Nos. 99 to 130 are those members of the Society who were enrolled on 1.12.1988 after the Scheme of Administration of the Institution was approved by the Deputy Director of Education on 31st December, 1983 and the 32 members enrolled on 28th May, 2008 by the Committee of Management of the Institution are from Serial Nos. 131 to 163 but the Presiding Officer conducted the elections on 10th June, 2009 from 137 members. The list prepared by the Presiding Officer includes the names of 32 members who had been enrolled on 28th May, 2008 but excludes the names of those 32 members who had been enrolled as life members of the General Body of the Society on 1st December, 1988. 9. The dispute in the present petition is about the exclusion of 32 members who had been enrolled on 1st December, 1988 as members of the General Body of the Society. 10. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Presiding Officer correctly excluded these 32 members who had been enrolled as members of the parent Society on 1st December, 1988 in view of the provisions of Clause 4(4) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. 10. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Presiding Officer correctly excluded these 32 members who had been enrolled as members of the parent Society on 1st December, 1988 in view of the provisions of Clause 4(4) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. According to him, the General Body of the Institution will consist of the members of the General Body of the Society enrolled prior to the coming into force of the Scheme of Administration only and the members enrolled subsequently after the coming into force the Scheme of Administration of the Institution cannot be included. He, therefore, submits that there is no error in the voters list prepared by the Presiding Officer and, therefore, the Regional Level Committee was not justified in holding that the voters list prepared by the Presiding Officer on the basis of which the election was held was not a valid list. 11. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that there is no infirmity in the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee in holding that the voters list prepared by the Presiding Officer was not valid. It is his submission that the Scheme of Administration of the Institution does not exclude those members of the Society who were enrolled after the date on which the Scheme of Administration of the Institution was approved by the Deputy Director of Education, from being members of the General Body of the Institution. 12. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the provisions of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution have to be examined. What is surprising is that though the name of the Institution is Intermediate College, Kusmiliya, but the Scheme of Administration of the Institution is called “Scheme of Administration of Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Kusmiliya”. Learned Senior Counsel for the parties have, however, stated that what is annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition is the correct copy of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. Clause 2 of the Scheme of Administration is the definition clause and sub-clause (3) of Clause 2 provides that ‘’Sanstha’ shall mean ‘’Intermediate College, Kusmiliya’ while sub-clause (8) of Clause 2 provides that ‘’Sabha’ shall refer to the General Body. 13. Clause 2 of the Scheme of Administration is the definition clause and sub-clause (3) of Clause 2 provides that ‘’Sanstha’ shall mean ‘’Intermediate College, Kusmiliya’ while sub-clause (8) of Clause 2 provides that ‘’Sabha’ shall refer to the General Body. 13. Clause 4 of the Scheme of Administration deals with the General Body and it provides that the Sanstha shall have a General Body which shall have the following types of members : (1) ‘’Patron and life members’ will be those persons who make a one time deposit of Rs. 2000/- in cash or in the shape of property and patron shall be life members of the General Body. (2) ‘Ordinary member’ shall be those persons who make a one time deposit of Rs. 300/- and they shall continue as members of the General Body for a period of three years but they shall be entitled to vote in the election only if they have continued as member of the General Body for a period of one year. (3) ‘Nominated member’-Five persons to be nominated by the District Inspector of Schools at the time of sending election notice from amongst the educationists. (4) Such life members (with the exception of founder members, patron, ordinary life members) who have continued as members till the amendment of the Scheme of Administration, shall continue in the same manner. 14. The controversy in the present petition revolves around the interpretation of Clause 4(4) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. 15. According to Sri Saxena, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, only such life members of the General Body of the Society who were enrolled prior to 31st December, 1983, which is the date when the amended Scheme of Administration of the Institution was approved, shall be the members of the General Body of the Institution, while according to Sri Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, this Clause does not prohibit the members of the Society enrolled after 31st December, 1983 from being members of the General Body of the Institution and it only protects the membership of such life members enrolled prior to 31st December, 1983 even if the fee deposited by them is not in accordance with what has been prescribed in the amended Scheme of Administration of the Institution. 16. 16. The Bye-Laws of the Society have not been placed before the Court and the Court is called upon to decide the validity or otherwise of the impugned order in the light of the provisions of Clause 4(4) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. 17. Clause 4 of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution deals with the General Body. Sub-Clauses (1), (2) and (3) of Clause 4 deal with patrons and life members/ordinary members or nominated members. Sub-Clause (4) only protects such life members of the parent Society enrolled under the unamended Scheme of Administration who have continued to be members till the amended Scheme of Administration was approved in December 1983. It does not, in any manner, prohibit such members of the General Body of the Society who have been enrolled after December 1983 to be members of the General Body of the Institution. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that only because of Clause 4(4) of the amended Scheme of Administration of the Institution, such members of the General Body of the Society, who were enrolled after December, 1983, cannot be included in the list of voters of the Committee of Management of the Institution. The list of members of the General Body which was finalised by the Presiding Officer, however, excluded such members who were enrolled as members of the parent Society after December, 1983. The Regional Level Committee has, therefore, correctly set aside the election on the ground that the voters list was defective since it excludes such members. 18. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee. 19. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ————