JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. An application has been moved by one Sri Radhey Pratap Singh seeking intervention in the matter through his counsel Sri Ramesh Pandey. 2. Application is allowed. 3. Sri Ramesh Pandey, Advocate is permitted to argue the case as an intervenor on behalf Sri Radhey Pratap Singh. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents and Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned counsel for intervenor. 5. It has been argued by learned counsel for petitioners that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 06.10.2015 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Raebareli under Section 5 (1) of the High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act , 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') whereby the salary distribution account has been ordered to be operated under the signature of Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of District Inspector of Schools, is illegal and hence, the same cannot be permitted to be sustained. It has further been submitted that the order dated 21.05.2015 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Raebareli is beyond competence and jurisdiction inasmuch as he is not legally empowered to ensure the elections of the Committee of Management of the institution. 6. It appears that on the basis of some elections of the Committee of Management of the institution held on 18.05.2014, papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools for attestation of the signature of the then elected Manager Sri Ali Azhar Naqvi, who died on 05.10.2014. During pendency of the proceedings of attestation of signature of the elected Manager, the Committee of Management on 09.11.2014 resolved to appoint the petitioner no.2 as Manager of the institution in terms of the provisions contained in the Scheme of Administration. Accordingly, papers were again sent in the month of November, 2014. However, during pendency of the proceedings regarding attestation of the signature of petitioner no.2, it appears that on 03.09.2014, an order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools that elections of the Committee of Management be held in terms of the provisions contained in the Government Order dated 21.11.2008. However, during pendency of the proceedings regarding attestation of the signature of petitioner no.2, it appears that on 03.09.2014, an order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools that elections of the Committee of Management be held in terms of the provisions contained in the Government Order dated 21.11.2008. Thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order on 20.11.2014, under Section 5 (1) of the Act directing therein that till further orders the salary account shall be operated under the signature of the Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of DIOS. 7. Challenging the aforesaid two orders dated 03.09.2014 and 20.11.2014, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 1522 (M/S) of 2015 wherein it has been observed that the District Inspector of Schools is not competent authority to validate or invalidate the proceedings of elections and any dispute with respect to the elections of the Committee of Management is to be referred to the competent authority. This Court in its order dated 08.04.2015 passed in the said petition has further directed the District Inspector of Schools to complete and finalize the process of attestation of signatures within a period of two weeks, failing which, it was further provided that the operation of the order dated 20.11.2014 would stand stayed. After the order dated 08.04.2015, the District Inspector of Schools on the basis of some correspondence contained in the letter dated 15.05.2015 of the Joint Director of Education, passed an order dated 21.05.2015 attesting the signature of petitioner no.2 as Manager and further directed that the elections of the Committee of Management be held within four months. 8. It appears that despite the aforesaid directions contained in the order dated 21.05.2015, elections were not held and it is in this background that the District Inspector of Schools has now passed an order under Section 5 (1) of the Act for single hand operation of the salary account. By means of order dated 06.10.2015, the signatures of the elected Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution have been attested for the purposes of disbursement of salary to the teaching and non teaching staff under the provisions of the Act. Prima facie, the Court is of the opinion that the dispute relating to validity of the elections of the Committee of Management cannot be gone into by the District Inspector of Schools. 9. Prima facie, the Court is of the opinion that the dispute relating to validity of the elections of the Committee of Management cannot be gone into by the District Inspector of Schools. 9. Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for Sri Radhey Pratap Singh seeking intervention in the matter, has submitted that the dispute regarding membership of the society is pending consideration before the Deputy Registrar and further that the alleged elections held on 18.05.2014 are not in terms of the provisions contained in the Government Orders dated 02.09.2008 and 21.11.2008. 10. To the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the District Inspector of Schools is insisting on two issues; (1) that as per prevalent Government Order, it is the general body of the society which is to form electoral college for electing the members of the Committee of Management of the institution and (2) in the case of the institution concerned, it is the general body of the society which forms the electoral college for electing the office bearers of the Committee of Management of the institution, hence the said objection is frivolous. He has also stated that the District Inspector of Schools has been insisting to adopt the Model Scheme of Administration, requirement of which has been dispensed with in view of the judgment rendered by this Court on 17.10.2014 in the case of C/M Lala Babu Baijal Memorial Inter College and another vs. State of U.P and others. 11. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that before attesting the signature of elected Manager, prima facie, satisfaction of the District Inspector of Schools has to be recorded regarding factum of elections having been held in terms of the provisions of Government Orders issued from time to time. 12. I have considered the arguments made by learned counsel for parties. 13. The District Inspector of Schools under Section 5 (1) of the Act may not be competent authority for strictly adjudicating the validity of the elections of the Committee of Management or the office bearers, however, since he has to attest the signature for the purposes of disbursing the salary, as such he certainly can look into the procedural and other aspects to ensure that the election of the Manager has been held in terms of various provisions of the law and the Government orders issued from time to time. 14. 14. As to whether the elections dated 18.05.2014 has been held by the electoral college which comprised of members of the general body of the society is a factual issue which cannot be gone into by this Court at this stage. 15. The District Inspector of Schools, while passing the order dated 21.05.2015, on one hand has attested the signature of the petitioner no.2 as the Manager of the institution and has simultaneously directed holding of elections of the Committee of Management. Such directions given by the District Inspector of Schools would, in fact, amount to adjudicating upon the validity of the election held on 18.05.2014, which in my considered opinion, is beyond his competence and jurisdiction. However, as already stated above, the person claiming to have been duly elected Manager is under obligation to establish that the election has been held in terms of the provisions of Government Orders. 16. In view of above, the order dated 21.05.2015 whereby elections have been directed to be held cannot be sustained. The order dated 06.10.2015, which is based on the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 21.05.2015, will also not be permitted to sustain. 17. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order dated 06.10.2015 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Raebareli as contained in annexure no.2 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. The order dated 21.05.2015 in so far as it requires holding of elections of the Committee of Management as contained in annexure no.1 to the writ petition is also hereby quashed. Rest of the part of order dated 21.05.2015 passed by the District Inspector of Schools shall remain intact. 18. However, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, the Regional Level Committee headed by the Joint Director constituted under the provisions of Government Order dated 19.12.2000 will consider as to whether the election of the Committee of Management held on 18.05.2014 satisfy the requirement of Government Orders and further as to whether in view of the judgement rendered by this Court on 17.10.2014 in the case of C/M Lala Babu Baijal Memorial Inter College and another vs. State of U.P and others, insistence of the District Inspector of Schools to adopt the Model Scheme Administration is tenable or not. The aforesaid exercise shall be done by the Regional Level Committee within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 19. There will be no order as to costs.