Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Heard Sri S.P.Singh learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner committee of management has come up before this Court assailing the order passed by the Joint Director of Education on 10.7.2012 appointing an authorised controller in the institution for getting the election held as the tenure of the existing committee has already run out. 3. Sri S.P.Singh learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner committee was continuing in effective control and was discharging all duties up till May,2012. and the committee on its own took an initiative to get the elections held for which a letter was signed by the petitioner making a request that the committee be permitted to hold the elections. This however came to be followed after a notice had been issued by the District Inspector of Schools calling upon the petitioner to give intimation about the approved scheme of administration as applicable in the institution. 4. From the facts pleaded in the petition it is clear that there is no evidence of elections being held either prior to 2002 or even after the signatures of the petitioner were attested in 2002. As a matter of fact there is no evidence of any elections having been held or approved by the appropriate authority and the petitioner was allowed to continue to function as Manager. 5. It is in this back ground Sri S.P.Singh learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the appointment of the authorised controlled is illegal keeping in view the government order dated 2.9.2008 as clarified by a subsequent government order dated 8.9.2008. He submits that the State Govt. itself has issued directives not to supersede the committees where they have run out of their terms and a further direction has been issued to allow the elections to be held where the authorised controllers are functioning within 3 months. Sri Singh contends that the said government orders are binding on the authorities and the appointment of the authorised controller in the institution is contrary to the said government orders. He therefore prays that the impugned order be quashed and the petitioner committee be allowed to hold the elections. 6. Sri Singh contends that the said government orders are binding on the authorities and the appointment of the authorised controller in the institution is contrary to the said government orders. He therefore prays that the impugned order be quashed and the petitioner committee be allowed to hold the elections. 6. Learned standing counsel on the other hand contends that the government order dated 2.9.2008 read with the government order dated 8.9.2008 issued a directive calling upon the authorities to ask the institutions to get their scheme amended accordingly so that the authorised controllers are not appointed immediately after the term expires. He contends that the scheme of administration of the petitioner institution has not been amended so far nor is there any other provision, and in the circumstances the petitioner cannot claim benefit of the said government orders. He further contends that the tenure of the committee has admittedly run out and in the absence of ta valid committee, the steps taken by the Joint Director of Education appears to be justified as per the amended scheme of administration as applicable in the institution. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties it appears that the petitioner has not filed the scheme of administration that was required by the District Inspector of Schools to be submitted in terms of the communication made earlier. However, at the time of arguments before this court he admits that the scheme of administration as applicable in the institution stipulates the term of the committee of management as three years and one month with a further stipulation if, the elections are not held, an authorised controller would be appointed to hold the elections. 8. It is thus clear that the institution has a model scheme but the said scheme had not been amended in tune with the government orders on which reliance is being placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The scheme of administration not having been amended will apply in the form as it exists today. It was for the petitioner to have made a move for an amended scheme of administration. It is clear that an authorised controller has to be appointed after the expiry of the term as stipulated in the existing scheme. The scheme of administration not having been amended will apply in the form as it exists today. It was for the petitioner to have made a move for an amended scheme of administration. It is clear that an authorised controller has to be appointed after the expiry of the term as stipulated in the existing scheme. The petitioner having failed to get it amended the existing scheme would be applicable and according to which admittedly the tenure of the petitioner committee has come to an end. 9. In the circumstances and the facts that emerge as above the impugned order cannot be faulted as the tenure of the management has come to an end and the authorised controller has to be appointed for holding a fresh elections. 10. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorised controller to get the elections held within 3 months and hand over charge to the newly elected committee of management within the said period. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. _