JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Neeraj Chaurasia, learned counsel representing the District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar and Shri Kshemendra Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5. 3. This petition by the petitioners has been filed impeaching the order dated 25.10.2016, whereby the signatures of respondent no.5-Harish Chandra Yadav have been attested by the District Basic Education Officer as Manager of Baba Prem Das Junior High School, Patti Muiyan, Katghar Musa, district-Ambedkar Nagar. 4. The petitioner no.1 alleges itself to be the Committee of Management of the said institution and the petitioner no.2 states that his signatures were, in fact, attested by the District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar as Manager on 26.09.2016 itself. 5. Admittedly, the last undisputed Manager of the institution was one Shri Raja Ram Yadav, who died on 18.09.2016, which resulted in vacancy in the office of Manager of the institution. The petitioner no.2 claims to have been elected as Manager of the institution for the remainder period of the term of the earlier Committee of Management a meeting held on 21.09.2016 and on that basis his signature appears to have been attested by the District Basic Education Officer as Manager on 26.09.2016. The basic premise of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that once the signatures of the petitioner no.2 as Manager of the institution were attested by the District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar, vide order dated 26.09.2016, it was not open to the District Basic Education Officer to have reviewed his earlier order and after rescinding the same, pass the impugned order on 25.10.2016 attesting the signatures of respondent no.5 in supersession of all earlier orders. 6. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the first instance appears to be very attractive, however, the same deserves to be rejected for the reasons which follow. 7. The institution in question is run and managed by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act known as "Baba Prem Das Junior High School". The bye laws of the Society provides that the manner in which its affairs are to be run and managed. According to clause 17(2) in absence of the founder, all his functions and duties shall be performed by O;oLFkkid (Manager). The bye laws of the Society provides that the manner in which its affairs are to be run and managed. According to clause 17(2) in absence of the founder, all his functions and duties shall be performed by O;oLFkkid (Manager). Sub clause 3 of bye laws 17 of the Society provides that in absence of O;oLFkkid (Manager), all the duties and functions of O;oLFkkid (Manager) shall be performed by mi O;oLFkkid (Deputy Manager). There is no dispute that respondent no.5 prior to death of late Raja Ram, erstwhile Manager, was mi O;oLFkkid (Deputy Manager) of the Society and as such in terms of the provisions contained in bye laws 17(3) after the death of Raja Ram, all the duties and functions of O;oLFkkid (Manager) of the Society could have been and should have been performed only by respondent no.5. One of the functions of the founder as defined in bye laws 17 is to convene the meeting of the Committee of Management or O;oLFkkfidk lHkk (General Body) . 8. Thus, in terms of the provisions contained in bye laws 17 of the Society, on the death of erstwhile Manager, Raja Ram on 18.09.2016, the meeting could have been convened only by mi O;oLFkkid (Deputy Manager), who, admittedly, is respondent no.5. The meeting where the petitioner is said to have been elected as Manager for the remainder period of the term of the Committee of Management i.e. the meeting allegedly held on 21.09.2016 is being categorically denied to have taken place by respondent no.5, who under the bye laws was himself entitled to convene the meeting. It is also noticeable that bye laws 16 of the Society provides procedure for convening the meeting, according to which, the meeting could be convened only on a notice of ten days prior to date of the meeting. It is not denied by the petitioner that death of the erstwhile Manager, Raja Ram occurred on 18.09.2016. The petitioner has also asserted that the meeting was held on 21.09.2016. Thus, if these two events are viewed chronologically, the only indefeasible inference which can be drawn is that the fulfillment of requirement of ten days notice was not possible for the meeting allegedly held on 21.09.2016. 9. The petitioner has also asserted that the meeting was held on 21.09.2016. Thus, if these two events are viewed chronologically, the only indefeasible inference which can be drawn is that the fulfillment of requirement of ten days notice was not possible for the meeting allegedly held on 21.09.2016. 9. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that in fact no meeting was held on 21.09.2016 as per the prescriptions available in the bye laws of the Society and as such on the basis of any such alleged decision taken in the meeting held on 21.09.2016 petitioner's signatures as Manager could not have been attested by the District Basic Education Officer. 10. Learned counsel representing the District Basic Education Officer has stated that once the entire matter was brought to the notice of the District Basic Education Officer by the respondent no.5, he passed the impugned order dated 25.10.2016 which in the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be said to be an order passed on review of the earlier order dated 18.09.2016; rather it is an order correcting the mistake committed by the Basic Education Officer for the reason that complete facts and material, specially the bye laws of the Society were not before him, neither the same were brought to his notice by the petitioner. He has gone even to the extent of saying that it was the duty of the petitioners to have apprised the Basic Education Officer of the correct provisions as available in the bye laws of the Society while claiming attestation of his signatures and by not doing so the petitioner in fact has suppressed the material facts. His submission further is that once the suppressed material facts were disclosed to the District Education Officer, he has only corrected the mistake committed by him while passing the order dated 18.09.2016 and the said mistake has been corrected by his order dated 25.10.2016. 11. Submissions made by the learned counsel representing the District Basic Education Officer are appealing looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case. It is noteworthy that there is no dispute that the death of the erstwhile Manager, Raja Ram occurred on 18.09.2016 and it is on the basis of a meeting allegedly held within three days of his death i.e. on 21.09.2016 that petitioner's signatures were sought to be attested. It is noteworthy that there is no dispute that the death of the erstwhile Manager, Raja Ram occurred on 18.09.2016 and it is on the basis of a meeting allegedly held within three days of his death i.e. on 21.09.2016 that petitioner's signatures were sought to be attested. It is also heartening to note that the petitioner is the real son of late Raja Ram and so is respondent no.5. After the death of the father in the family, it is highly improbable that any such meeting could have taken place within three days on 21.09.2016 when the family was in mourning and grief. 12. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the Court agrees with the submissions made by Shri Neeraj Chaurasia, learned counsel representing the District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar. 13. For the reasons disclosed above, the writ petition fails, which is hereby dismissed.