JUDGMENT Shabihul Hasnain,J. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri S.P. Singh and Sri H.G.S. Parihar, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Diwakar Singh. 2. Since in both these writ petitions common question of law and facts are involved, hence they are decided by this common order. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by Joint Director (Education), Faizabad Division, Faizabad. By this order, the Joint Director has granted recognition to the alleged election held on 9.6.2013, and has also recognized one Arun Kumar Singh, as the Manager. 4. Sri Parihar, Sr. Advocate, has raised preliminary objection to the effect that once election has been held and signature has been attested, the writ petition is not maintainable. He has further stated that petitioner no. 1 is not committee of management and there should have been resolution of the general body in their favour. He further says that the committee of management, which has been recognized by the Joint Director has not been made party and this petition is not maintainable for non joinder of the parties. There is one more objection by Sri Parihar that the petitioner did not raise any objection in the proceedings before the Joint Director and did not object to the signature being attested by her as is evident by the impugned order. It has also been pointed out by him that by the order dated 17.8. 2013 passed by the D.I.O.S., single hand operation is continuing in the college. 5. Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate, has submitted that the objection raised by the opposite parties are misconceived for the reasons; firstly committee of management, which has filed the writ petition, has never been superseded and it is continuing since the last election. No authorized controller has ever been appointed by the State. In fact the petitioners, themselves, have filed writ petition that the elections are due and D.I.O.S. may be directed to get elections conducted expeditiously. Order was passed by this Court that the election may be conducted within two months. Accordingly, observer and the election officer was appointed by the D.I.O.S. The record reveals that there is no dispute between the parties that the observer did not participate in the election. There is a report of the election officer (annexure no. 16), who was the principal of the Govt. Accordingly, observer and the election officer was appointed by the D.I.O.S. The record reveals that there is no dispute between the parties that the observer did not participate in the election. There is a report of the election officer (annexure no. 16), who was the principal of the Govt. High School, Suchi, Amethi to the D.I.O.S. In this report the election officer has categorically mentioned that he had informed the D.I.O.S. about non arrival of the observer due to which the election was not held. Further on page-155 annexure no. 30, election officer has written "Privekshak ki anupasthithi me chunao sampann nahi karaya ja saka". This has been written on the proceeding, which has been prepared by the opposite parties to show that the election was held. By these documents it is very clear that the election officer had reported the matter to the D.I.O.S. and the D.I.O.S. was in the know of the matter that the election has not been held under the supervision of the election officer, nor the observer had reached the spot. Mr. Vinod Kumar Singh argues that it was incumbent upon the D.I.O.S. to have referred the matter to the regional committee as per G.O. 2008, when the matter was placed before him for verification of the signature. Instead he referred the matter to the Joint Director. 6. I have gone through the order passed by the Joint Director. Firstly the Joint Director had no power to examine the matter as it was out of her jurisdiction. It should have been dealt with by the regional committee. Moreover, there is no discussion as to how she verified that the election was held. She has herself written that the observer had not appeared on the site of the election. She has not discussed as to what the election officer had submitted. It was not a positive report. Further, the opposite parties had filed affidavit contained in annexure no. 22 at page 122 to the writ petition, before the D.I.O.S. that the election has not been held. When the matter was referred to the Joint Director, this letter was also pressed. Naturally, the matter was referred to the Joint Director only after receiving of objection filed on behalf of the petitioner. 22 at page 122 to the writ petition, before the D.I.O.S. that the election has not been held. When the matter was referred to the Joint Director, this letter was also pressed. Naturally, the matter was referred to the Joint Director only after receiving of objection filed on behalf of the petitioner. This fact cannot be denied by the Joint Director that the objections were received by the D.I.O.S. In such situation, there is no discussion as to how she gets power to decide the matter. Moreover, what has been done on the objection is not clear. The election officer has written concurrently that the election has not been held. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the Joint Director smacks of mala-fide. This Court is totally dissatisfied by the working and the order passed by the Joint Director. It is liable to be set aside. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated. 30.10.2013. passed by Joint Director of Education- opposite party no. 2 as contained in annexure no. 1 to the writ petition, is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Regional Level Committee to take a decision after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, say within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the committee. The Joint Director and the D.I.O.S. will send all the papers before the Regional Committee for adjudication.