JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar assisted by Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. P. Singh for the caveator, who had also earlier appeared in opposition in Writ Petition No. 65426 of 2010. 2. Sri S. P. Singh appears for the complainants namely Jugendra Pal Singh, Mahendra Singh, Darshan Pal Singh, Vijay Pal Singh and Ram Pal Singh. He submits that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit at this stage and the matter may be heard and disposed of finally. The same stand has been taken by the learned Standing Counsel. 3. Accordingly, the matter is being disposed of finally with the consent of the parties. 4. At this stage, it would be appropriate to clarify that the respondent No. 4 Harpal Singh is the Ex-Manager of the Institution, who had been elected in the Election held on 15.6.2007 and is directly related to the complainants in the manner as disclosed in paragraph 35 of the Writ Petition. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to issue notice to the said respondent, as he was not even the complainant before the District Inspector of Schools and further his tenure having come to an end, he is not a proper nor a necessary party. 5. The dispute relates to the elections of Committee of Management of Adarsh Kisan Inter College, Sohi, District Bulandshahar. The undisputed facts are that on 15.6.2007, the previous elections had been held by the Authorized Controller, who was admittedly functioning in the Institution. The respondent No. 4 Harpal Singh was elected as the Manager. The Authorized Controller handed over charge to the said Committee of Management after approval and the attestation of the signatures of the respondent No. 4 on 29.8.2007. The said Committee was continuing and the Scheme of Administration as per Clause 8 requires the out going Committee proceed to hold elections. The Committee has to be constituted and take over charge within a period of three years and one month. It is the contention of the petitioners that the process of election had started and the District Inspector of Schools had been informed about the same whereafter the elections have been held on 22.8.2010. The Committee has to be constituted and take over charge within a period of three years and one month. It is the contention of the petitioners that the process of election had started and the District Inspector of Schools had been informed about the same whereafter the elections have been held on 22.8.2010. The documents pertaining to the elections were submitted but no decision was being taken and on the contrary recommendation was made by the District Inspector of Schools on 6th August, 2010 to appoint an Authorized Controller due to the lapse of the period of three years and one month that was being counted w.e.f. 15.6.2007. The Joint Director, Education passed an order on 28/30.8.2010 for making a recommendation to the State Government for appointing an Authorized Controller under the Provision of Section 16-D. Aggrieved by the said action and inaction on the part of the competent authority, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 65426 of 2010. After hearing the petitioner and Sri S. P. Singh, learned counsel for the complainants and after noticing the aforesaid facts, the Court issued a direction to the respondent No. 2 therein namely District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahar to pass appropriate orders. 6. The submission raised on behalf of the petitioners was clearly to the effect that the tenure of the Committee of Management elected on 15.6.2007 commenced w.e.f. 29.8.2007 inasmuch as the said elections were recognized for the first time on 29.8.2007 by the District Inspector of Schools whereafter the Authorized Controller handed over charge to the then Committee of Management. Prior to the said date, the Committee had not functioned even for a single day. It is, therefore, submitted that the actual tenure in such peculiar circumstances would be governed by the law laid down by this Court in Division Bench Judgement in Committee of Management, Jangali Baba Intermediate College Garwar, District Ballia and another v. Deputy Director of Education, 5th Region, Varanasi and others, (1991) 2 UPLBEC 1183. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner-Committee, which has been elected on 22.8.2010 had been constituted well within the time of three years and one month as per the Scheme of Administration. 7. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner-Committee, which has been elected on 22.8.2010 had been constituted well within the time of three years and one month as per the Scheme of Administration. 7. Sri Pradeep Kumar further submits that the District Inspector of Schools had proceeded to non-suit the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the election schedule, which has been published in the newspaper was not got approved through him and further the list of the members of the General Body had not been forwarded eleven months prior to the holding of the elections. These two findings according to the learned counsel are erroneous inasmuch as even if the election programme was not published in a newspaper approved by the District Inspector of Schools, the same would not ipso facto invalidate the elections so long as the elections were held after issuing notice to the members. He further submits that the intimation of the membership list to the District Inspector of Schools even otherwise is not necessary as there was no change in the electoral college and the same members who were then existing, and had earlier participated in the elections of 2007, were to participate in the elections. The contention, therefore, is that none of the reasons given in the order impugned are sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. Sri Pradeep Kumar further submits that the order ought to have been passed by the Regional Level Committee through Joint Director, Education and not by the District Inspector of Schools as the same involved the interpretation of the period of running of the Committee of Management. 9. Sri S. P. Singh, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the District Inspector of Schools has decided the matter in view of the direction issued on 2.11.2010 in a Writ Petition filed by the petitioners themselves and therefore, there is no want of jurisdiction with the District Inspector of Schools. The elections are invalid and he therefore contends that the order deserves no interference and that fresh elections should be held through the Authorized Controller. 10. Learned Standing Counsel has also adopted the said argument on behalf of the respondents. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the first issue to be addressed is the tenure of the Committee of Management. 10. Learned Standing Counsel has also adopted the said argument on behalf of the respondents. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the first issue to be addressed is the tenure of the Committee of Management. The law laid down as understood and interpreted by this Court from the decision in the case of Committee of Management, Jungali Baba Intermediate College Garwar, District Ballia and another v. Deputy Director of Education, 5th Region, Varanasi and others (supra) onwards is clearly to the effect that if the Committee has not been allowed to function during the intervening period of the tenure, then the date of commencement of the tenure would be the date of elections, but if the Committee has not been allowed to function on account of the appointment of the Authorized Controller even for a single day prior to its taking over charge, then the said period has to be excluded and the period would commence from the date the Authorized Controller hands over charge. 12. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the charge was handed over on 29.8.2007 for the first time, and prior to that it was Authorized Controller who was functioning. In such peculiar circumstances, the tenure has to be read to be existing till 28.8.2010 with a further period of one month would end on 28.9.2010. The elections have therefore been admittedly held prior to the expiry of three years one month on 22.8.2010 and therefore, the finding recorded by the District Inspector of Schools on this issue is unsustainable. 13. Coming to the findings in relation to sending of the list of members eleven months prior to the holding of the elections, suffice it to say that the purpose for sending such a list is that elections are held from amongst the valid members. Non sending of such list therefore ipso facto would not invalidate the elections if the same are held from amongst the existing members, who had participated in the previous elections. In the instant case, it is not the finding of the District Inspector of Schools that outsiders have participated in the elections or persons other than the list already existing had participated in the elections. Accordingly, the impugned order on this score also cannot be sustained. 14. In the instant case, it is not the finding of the District Inspector of Schools that outsiders have participated in the elections or persons other than the list already existing had participated in the elections. Accordingly, the impugned order on this score also cannot be sustained. 14. The third finding is that the date of the elections had not been announced prior to two months of the holding of the elections. There is no finding that the members, who were then existing had not been allowed to participate in the elections. Accordingly, none of the reasons given in the order of the District Inspector of Schools are sustainable in the eyes of law. The order dated 31.12.2010 is, therefore, quashed. 15. However, in order to determine the objections raised with regard to the validity of the elections other than those noted above, the matter shall be considered by the Regional Level Committee through the Joint Director, Education as Chairman and a decision shall be taken within six months from the presentation of the certified copy of the order before the Joint Director, Education in the light of the observations made herein-above. The Regional Level Committee shall put to notice any aggrieved person for the purpose of determining the dispute. 16. Allowed. Remitted. —————