JUDGMENT By the Court.—Krishna Kumari Singh and 11 others, who claim to be the members of the General Body of the Society namely, Jhallu Jeetlal Bal Kalyan Samiti, Mandhata, Pratapgarh, have filed this Special Appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 against the judgment and order dated 17 October 2014 passed by a learned Judge of this Court by which Writ Petition No. 56462 of 2014 filed by the Committee of Management of Jhallu Jeetlal Bal Kalyan Samiti, Mandhata, Pratapgarh (the Institution) has been allowed with certain directions. 2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the Committee of Management of the Institution through its Manager Ganga Prasad Kesharwani for quashing the order dated 1 October 2014 passed by the Joint Director of Education by which he had modified his earlier order dated 30 September 2014 and directed that the elections for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution would be conducted by the Interim Committee constituted on 7 February 2014. 3. The election for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution was earlier held on 25 April 2010. However, the post of Manager fell vacant and the election was not approved. The Scheme of Administration of the Institution provides that the term of the Committee of Management shall be of three years. It also provides in clause 8(2) that if the elections are not conducted within the aforesaid period of three years and one month, the Regional Director of Education will constitute an Interim Committee of three persons to work as President, Manager and Treasurer for a period of six months. This Interim Committee will not only manage the day-to-day affairs of the Institution but will also hold the elections for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution. 4. As the elections were not held within the aforesaid period of three years and one month, the Joint Director of Education passed an order on 7 February 2014 constituting a three member Interim Committee for conducting elections. This Interim Committee, however, did not hold the elections within a period of six months and, therefore, the Joint Director of Education passed an oder on 30 September 2014 directing the District Inspector of Schools to hold the elections on the basis of undisputed list of members in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. This Interim Committee, however, did not hold the elections within a period of six months and, therefore, the Joint Director of Education passed an oder on 30 September 2014 directing the District Inspector of Schools to hold the elections on the basis of undisputed list of members in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. Subsequently, this order dated 30 September 2014 was modified by the Joint Director of Education on 1 October 2014 and a direction was issued to the Interim Committee to hold the elections. 5. The learned Judge has found that the Interim Committee could not have continued beyond the period of six months and, therefore, quashed the order dated 1 October 2014. A further direction has been issued to the Joint Director of Education to forthwith appoint an Authorised Controller who shall proceed to take immediate steps for holding fair and transparent elections for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the Institution and on the basis of the undisputed list of members. The learned Judge has also directed that the Authorised Controller will ensure that the list of members is finalised in a transparent and fair manner after publishing the tentative list and inviting objections. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellants were not impleaded as respondents in the said writ petition and though they had filed an impleadment application, the writ petition has been decided without passing any order on the impleadment application. It is also his submission that the list of members is in dispute before the Lucknow Bench of this Court in a writ petition in which an interim order has been passed and, therefore, fresh elections cannot be held till the matter is finalised. It is also his submission that the Authorised Controller has no jurisdiction to finalise the list of members. 7. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents has submitted that the appellants have no locus to file this Special Appeal and that the Special Appeal (Special Appeal No. 1051 of 2014, Interim Committee (Up Samiti) v. State of U.P. and others), filed by the Interim Committee through its President has already been dismissed by judgment of date. 7. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents has submitted that the appellants have no locus to file this Special Appeal and that the Special Appeal (Special Appeal No. 1051 of 2014, Interim Committee (Up Samiti) v. State of U.P. and others), filed by the Interim Committee through its President has already been dismissed by judgment of date. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that in the facts and circumstance of the case, when the Interim Committee did not hold the elections within the period of six months, the Writ Court was justified in issuing direction for appointment of Authorised Controller for holding of the elections. 8. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the twelve members of the General Body of the Society do not have a locus to assail the judgment and order dated 17 October 2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 56462 of 2014 out of which the present Special Appeal arises. However, we have proceeded to examine the various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. 9. Clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution provides that the term of the office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Institution would be three years and one month and if within a period of three years and one month, a new Committee of Management does not take charge, then the term of the office bearers of the Committee of Management shall automatically come to an end. Clause 8(2) provides that if fresh election to constitute a Committee of Management is not held within the period prescribed in clause 7, then the Joint Director of Education shall appoint three members from the General Body to function as the President, Manager and Treasurer for a period of six months. It also provides that one of the functions of this Interim Committee is to hold election for constituting a new Committee of Management of the Institution. It also provides that one of the functions of this Interim Committee is to hold election for constituting a new Committee of Management of the Institution. It is, therefore, clear that the maximum period for which an Interim committee can be continued is six months and it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that this Interim Committee can continue for even after expiry of six months since there is no clause restricting its continuance after six months. As is seen, clause 8(2) clearly provides that the Interim Committee can be formed for six months. In this view of the matter, the Interim Committee does not have a right to continue after six months nor does it have a right to challenge the order directing the Joint Director of Education to appoint an Authorised Controller for conducting the elections since the maximum period of six months during which the Interim Committee could have continued had expired. This was also observed by the Full Bench of this Court in Committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education and others, 2004(4) ESC 2257 . 10. It is also not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Authorised Controller cannot finalise the list of members of the General Body because of the stay order dated 29 November 2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 6569 (M/B) of 2013 in which the list of members of the General Body had been stayed. As has been observed in the order of the learned Judge, the parties would have ample opportunity to file their objections to the tentative list which would thereafter be finalised. The order passed by the learned Judge for appointment of Authorised Controller for holding the fresh elections does not suffer from any illegality which may call for interference in this Special Appeal. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ——————