JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The Committee of Management of Anjuman Hidayatul Islam High School and Mohd. Idarish Ansari claiming himself to be the Manager have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 25th July, 2013 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah by which he has cancelled the earlier order dated 20th February, 2013 passed for attesting the signatures of petitioner No. 2-Mohd. Idarish Ansari as Manager on the basis of the election held on 10th February 2013 for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution and a further direction has been issued for holding fresh election for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution. The District Inspector of Schools has also ordered that till such time as fresh elections are held and the signatures of the elected Manager are attested, the payment of the salary to the staff of the Institution shall be made through the District Basic Education Officer, Etawah and the Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of the District Basic Education. 2. It is stated that pursuant to the directions issued by the Court on 4th January, 2012 in Writ Petition No. 42193 of 2012, an order dated 13th March, 2012 was passed by the District Inspector of Schools for appointment of the Principal of the Government Inter College as the Election Officer for holding election to constitute the Committee of Management of the Institution. Thereafter, the election was held on 10th February, 2013 and petitioner No. 2-Mohd. Idarish Ansari was elected as the Manager. These proceedings were submitted to the District Inspector of Schools on 12th February, 2013. The District Inspector of Schools approved the said election by the order dated 20th February, 2013 and attested the signatures of petitioner No. 2-Mohd. Idarish Ansari as the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution. 3. It also transpires that respondent No. 3-Mohd. Safique Ahmad Ansari filed Writ Petition No. 11294 of 2013 for quashing the order by which the Election Officer had declared the election result. The Court, after observing that the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution cannot take effect unless they are approved by the Competent Authority, disposed of the writ petition on 4th March, 2013 by providing that Mohd. The Court, after observing that the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution cannot take effect unless they are approved by the Competent Authority, disposed of the writ petition on 4th March, 2013 by providing that Mohd. Safique Ahmad Ansari could submit a representation to the District Inspector of Schools who, before approving or disapproving the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution, shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law by means of a reasoned speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 4. Respondent No. 3-Mohd. Safique Ahmad Ansari then filed a representation dated 11th March, 2013 before the District Inspector of Schools. Petitioner No. 2-Mohd. Idarish Ansari filed objections dated 10th April, 2013 and 13th May, 2013 in which apart from pointing out the correct facts in the objections dated 10th April, 2013, Mohd. Idarish Ansari also raised a preliminary objection in the second objections filed on 13th May, 2013 that the representation filed by Mohd. Safique Ahmad Ansari before the District Inspector of Schools on 11th March, 2013 was not maintainable as the District Inspector of Schools had earlier approved the election and attested the signatures of the Manager by the order dated 20th February, 2013 and he did not have any power to recall or review his order. 5. The District Inspector of Schools, however, by the order dated 25th July, 2013 set aside his earlier order dated 20th February, 2013 and directed for holding of fresh election for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution. 6. It is this order dated 25th July, 2013 passed by the District Inspector of Schools that has been impugned in this petition. Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the District Inspector of Schools had approved the election held on 10th February, 2013 and attested the signatures of petitioner No. 2-Mohd. Idarish Ansari by the order dated 20th February, 2013, he did not have any jurisdiction to decide the representation filed by respondent No. 3-Mohd. Safique Ahmad Ansari and if he had any grievance, he could have approached the Regional Level Committee. Learned counsel also submitted that the impugned order should be set aside since after the hearing had been concluded on 15th April, 2013, the District Inspector of Schools issued a notice dated 16th July, 2013 to respondent No. 3-Mohd. Safique Ahmad Ansari and if he had any grievance, he could have approached the Regional Level Committee. Learned counsel also submitted that the impugned order should be set aside since after the hearing had been concluded on 15th April, 2013, the District Inspector of Schools issued a notice dated 16th July, 2013 to respondent No. 3-Mohd. Safique Ahmad Ansari alone to give his explanation on certain points and the consideration of the explanation and the documents submitted by respondent No. 3 on 19th July, 2013 has vitiated the order. Learned counsel also submitted that the finding recorded in the impugned order regarding the defect in the election process is not correct as the election was held in accordance with the bye-laws of the Institution which was duly approved by Deputy Director of Education, Allahabad on 30th March, 1987 under which the General Body of the Institution has to elect 12 members of the Committee of Management of the Institution. It is also his submission that respondent No. 3-Mohd. Safique Ahmad Ansari could not have assailed the election as he had participated in it. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Sri J.J. Munir has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3 and he has also filed a short counter affidavit. 8. Sri Munir, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has stated that an incorrect finding has been recorded by the District Inspector of Schools in the impugned order that with his explanation submitted on 19th July, 2013 in response to the notice dated 16th July, 2013 issued by the District Inspector of Schools, the said respondent had also submitted documents since he had not submitted the documents. It is also his submission that petitioner No. 2 cannot be permitted to assail the jurisdiction of the District Inspector of Schools in deciding the matter since he had participated in the proceedings without raising any objection and in such circumstances it is not open to the petitioners to also contend that respondent No. 3 should have approached the Regional Level Committee, particularly when the High Court in its judgment and order dated 4th March, 2013 had given liberty to respondent No. 3 to file a representation before the District Inspector of Schools who was required to decide the same in accordance with law by means of a reasoned speaking order. It is, therefore, his submission that the impugned order does not call for any interference by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. The Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the election for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on 10th February, 2013 in which petitioner No. 2-Mohd. Idarish Ansari was elected as the Manager. It is also not in dispute that the said election was approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 20th February, 2013 and the signatures of petitioner No. 2-Mohd. Idarish Ansari were also attested. 10. Respondent No. 3-Mohd. Safique Ahmad Ansari, however, filed Writ Petition No. 11294 of 2013 to challenge the declaration of election result, which petition was disposed of 4th March, 2013 with the following observations : “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Under the order dated 12th February, 2013, the Election Officer has declared the result of Committee of Management of Anjuman Hidyatul Islam High School, Etawah. Petitioner, before this Court, seeks quashing of the said declaration of result. In the opinion of the Court it is not necessary to enter into any of the issues raised in the present writ petition, inasmuch as elections of Committee of Management of a recognized high school cannot take efffect unless they are approved by a competent authority in terms of the Government Order applicable. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioner may make a representation, ventilating all his grievances, supported by such documents, as may be advised before respondent No. 2 within two weeks from today, alongwith a certified copy of this order. On such representation being made, respondent No. 2, before approving or disapproving the elections of the Committee of Management of the institution in question, shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within four weeks from the date the representation is made after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. (emphasis supplied) 11. It has been stated by Sri J.J. Munir, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3-Mohd. Safique Ahmad Ansari that the said respondent had no knowledge that the District Inspector of Schools had approved the election and attested the signatures of petitioner No. 2-Mohd. (emphasis supplied) 11. It has been stated by Sri J.J. Munir, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3-Mohd. Safique Ahmad Ansari that the said respondent had no knowledge that the District Inspector of Schools had approved the election and attested the signatures of petitioner No. 2-Mohd. Idarish Ansari when the petition was filed and, therefore, the relief claimed was for quashing the said declaration of the result. 12. What is important to note is that the Court, after noticing that the elections of the Committee of Management of a recognised High School cannot take effect unless they are approved by the Competent Authority in terms of the Government Order, disposed of the writ petition on 4th March, 2013 by giving liberty to Mohd. Safique Ahmad Ansari to file a representation on which, before approving or disapproving the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution, the District Inspector of Schools was required to decide the same in accordance with law by means of a reasoned speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. In the instant case, the District Inspector of Schools had already approved the election on 20th February, 2013, much before the order was passed by the Court on 4th March, 2013. The Court had not granted liberty to Mohd. Safique Ahmad Ansari to file a representation even after the District Inspector of Schools had approved the election and attested the signatures and nor the Court had directed the District Inspector of Schools to decide the representation if he had granted approval to the election held on 10th February, 2013. It is for this reason that the petitioners had raised a preliminary objection before the District Inspector of Schools in the objections filed on 13th May, 2013 that the District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to decide the matter since he had already granted approval to the election on 20th February, 2013, but the District Inspector of Schools, even after noticing this preliminary objection raised by the petitioners, decided the dispute on merits instead of asking respondent No. 3-Mohd. Safique Ahmad Ansari to approach the Regional Level Committee. 13. Safique Ahmad Ansari to approach the Regional Level Committee. 13. A Division Bench of the Court in C/M Sri Yadvesh Inter College and another v. State Of U.P. and others, 2011 (8) ADJ 493 , has taken the view that once the District Inspector of Schools attests the signatures of the Manager, he becomes functus officio and the only remedy available to a person who subsequently raises a dispute is to approach the Regional Joint Director of Education who is the Chairman of the Regional Level Committee. The relevant observations are : “ ................................. We are of the considered opinion that the Regional Level Committee gets the power to decide the dispute relating to election of the Committee of Manager including office bearers and recognition of Manager only when the matter is referred by the District Inspector of Schools and once the District Inspector of Schools has attested the signature of the Manager and recognized the person to be the Manager he becomes functus officio to refer the matter to the Regional Level Committee even if the dispute has been raised subsequently. In such a situation the only remedy available to the person aggrieved is to approach the higher authorities which in the present case, undoubtedly, is the Regional Joint Director of Education and, this Court, therefore, was perfectly justified while passing the order dated 30.11.2009 directing the Joint Director of Education to decide the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.” The Court, therefore, finds substance in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that the District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to entertain the representation filed by respondent No. 3-Mohd. Safique Ahmad Ansari regarding the election held on 10th February, 2013 after the District Inspector of Schools had granted approval to election on 20th February, 2013 and had also attested the signatures of the Manager. The submission raised by Sri J.J. Munir, learned counsel for respondent No. 3-Mohd. Safique Ahmad Ansari that the petitioners had not raised any objection before the District Inspector of Schools is not correct as the petitioners had raised specific objection on 13th May, 2013 which has also been noticed in the impugned order by the District Inspector of Schools. In such circumstance, when respondent No. 3-Mohd. Safique Ahmad Ansari that the petitioners had not raised any objection before the District Inspector of Schools is not correct as the petitioners had raised specific objection on 13th May, 2013 which has also been noticed in the impugned order by the District Inspector of Schools. In such circumstance, when respondent No. 3-Mohd. Safique Ahmad Ansari can approach the Regional Level Committee, it will not be appropriate for the Court to examine on merits the validity of the election held on 10th February, 2013. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 25th July, 2013 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah is set aside. It shall, however, be open to respondent No. 3-Mohd. Safique Ahmad Ansari, if so advised, to file a representation before the Regional Level Committee which shall be decided after hearing the parties concerned. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. ————