Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.— Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anand Mani Tripathi who has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No.4. The petitioner, Shiv Chandra Pandey, has assailed the order passed by the Regional Level Committee dated 3rd April, 2012 on the ground that the findings are perverse and even otherwise if there is no finding or any adverse finding in relation to the fresh elections of 2011, then in that event if there is no valid committee of management recognized after the expiry of the term of the earlier committee of management, then the elections have to be held through a Prabandh Sanchlak as provided for in the Scheme of Administration. Sri Ojha submits that even assuming for the sake of arguments that the elections of 2011 as set up by the respective rival contendors were invalid including that of the petitioner, then in that event the only direction which could have been given was to appoint a Prabandh Sanchalak and hold fresh elections through him. Sri Ojha submits that to that extent the impugned order is invalid. I have perused the impugned order dated 3rd April, 2012 which proceeds to examine the validity of the elections dated 24th February, 2008 in which the respondent No.4 is alleged to have been elected. The said elections have been found to be valid by the Regional Level Committee. However, while proceeding to pass the an order a direction has been issued that the District Inspector of Schools under his supervision shall get the fresh elections of the committee held in accordance with the scheme of administration. Sri Ojha submits that this part of the direction is contrary to the scheme of Administration as the direction should have been to appoint a Prabandh Sanchalak who should have been authorized to hold elections in terms thereof. He, therefore, submits that this part of the order being contrary to the scheme of administration deserves to be set aside. From the impugned order it appears that during the pendency of the said dispute three rival elections were set up; one by Respondent No.4 said to have been held on 22.2.2001. The other election was set up by one Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi alleged to have been held on 19.2.2011. The third election is alleged to have been held by the petitioner on 12.3.2011. The other election was set up by one Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi alleged to have been held on 19.2.2011. The third election is alleged to have been held by the petitioner on 12.3.2011. All these three elections have not been accepted on the ground that there is no occasion to consider the said elections keeping in view the pending dispute in relation to the elections of 2008. The Respondent No.4 who is alleged to have set up the elections dated 22.2.2011 has not challenged the said finding. To the contrary what has been stated in the counter affidavit filed today is that the said respondent in compliance of the said order has proceeded to hold fresh elections in the presence of the observer sent by the District Inspector of Schools on 29.5.2012. These facts have been stated in paragraph 35 and 36 of the Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the Respondent No.4. From the aforesaid, facts it is, therefore clear, that the Respondent No.4 has abandoned his claim with regard to the elections dated 22.2.2011 that had been set up before the Regional Level Committee. In the aforesaid circumstances keeping in view the provisions of Scheme of Administration only a Prabandh Sanchalak could have held fresh elections upon being appointed by the Joint Director of Education in terms of the Scheme of Administration referred to hereinabove. The reason is that the tenure of the Committee of which the Respondent No.4 claims to have been elected as Manager in 2008 had expired in 2011. The subsequent election of 22.2.2011 set up by the Respondent No.4 was not accepted. The Respondent No.4 has not challenged this part of the order. The Regional Level Committee, therefore, could not have couched its order in a way so as to facilitate the holding of elections through the Respondent No.4 whose tenure of the committee elected on 24.2.2008 had already expired. The elections set up by the Respondent No.4 on 22.2.2011 has not been accepted or recognized. In such a situation the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the tenure of the committee elected in 2008 has expired and any fresh election could have been held through an authorized controller as indicated hereinabove. The claim of the respondent NO.4 to have held elections in the presence of the observer, therefore, could not have been accepted. In such a situation the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the tenure of the committee elected in 2008 has expired and any fresh election could have been held through an authorized controller as indicated hereinabove. The claim of the respondent NO.4 to have held elections in the presence of the observer, therefore, could not have been accepted. In the circumstances, the directions given in the impugned order dated 3rd April, 2012 to the extent of getting elections held without the help of the authorized controller is invalid. Accordingly, the order dated 3.4.2012 to the aforesaid extent is set aside as the elections could have been directed only to be held through the authorized controller as per the scheme of administration and not otherwise. The writ petition is partly allowed. _