JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Piyush Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Anand Mani Tripathi, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Arun Kumar Singh appearing on behalf of respondent no.4. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.05.2022, whereby the respondent no.4 has been nominated as Chairman in terms of scheme of administration of the Committee of Management of Town Polytechnic, Ballia. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the institution running in the name and style of Town Polytechnic, Ballia is governed under the provisions of U.P. Technical Education Act, 1962 and the regulations framed thereunder. It is argued that in terms of powers conferred by Regulation 41, Scheme of Administration which is approved by the State, provides for manner in which the appointments are to be made. He argues that in terms of the Scheme of administration as having been approved pertaining to the Town Polytechnic, Ballia, there is a provision under Clause 2 that the Committee shall be constituted comprising of as many as 12 members, the Chairman of the said Committee is to be nominated by the State Government. The other members are prescribed under the Clause 2 of the Scheme of Administration, which is on record as filed by learned Standing Counsel. The manner of nomination of Chairman is prescribed under Clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration. Sub Clause (2) (a) of Clause 7 prescribes that the approval granted by the Society shall be considered by the Managing Committee which shall shortlist names comprising a panel (it is open that the panelist can be a person who is not a member) and shall be sent to the Director, Technical Education. It is further provided that the said Director shall send his recommendations on the panel so forwarded to him to the State for choosing any one person out of the panel comprising of three names and the State Government is empowered to chose either of the three names as forwarded in the panel. 4. It is further provided that the said Director shall send his recommendations on the panel so forwarded to him to the State for choosing any one person out of the panel comprising of three names and the State Government is empowered to chose either of the three names as forwarded in the panel. 4. Clause 2 (b) of Clause 7 prescribes that in the event the State does not nominate any person out of the panel of three persons, the Managing Committee is empowered to send a second panel comprising of three names, the restriction being that the new panel shall not include the names of the panel sent earlier. These two clauses of Clause 7 are relevant for the purposes of adjudication of dispute at hand and are quoted herein below : ^^¼2½ v& laLFkk dh lkslk;Vh dh laLrqfr ij çcU/k lfefr 3 ukeksa dk iSuy ¼vko';d ugh fd blds lnL; gks½ v/;{k çcU/k lfefr dh fu;qfDr gsrq funs'kd çkfof/kd f'k{kk måçå dks HkstsaxsA funs'kd çkfof/kd f'k{kk dh laLrqfr dk mrj çns'k 'kklu rhu ukeksa ds iSuy esa ls fdlh ,d O;fDr dks v/;{k çcU/k lfefr ds in ij ukfer dj ldrk gSA ¼2 c½ ;fn 'kklu }kjk mijksDr iSuy esa ls fdlh O;fDr dks v/;{k in gsrq ukfer ugha fd;k tkrk gSA rks laLFkk dh çcU/k lfefr }kjk rhu ukeksa dk nwljk iSuy laLrqr fd;k tk;sxk tks çFke iSuy esa 'kkfey rhu ukeksa ls fHkUu gksaxsA** 5. In the light of Clause 7 (2) (a) of the Scheme of Administration, it is stated that the Managing Committee sent a resolution dated 25.11.2020 on 26.11.2020, recommending a panel comprising of three names. The said three persons were Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Sri Rajiv Kumar-respondent no.4 and Sri Ajay Kumar Ojha. On the recommendations and the panel sent by the Committee of Management on 26.11.2020, the Director send a communication to the State, stating that on 25.11.2020, for nomination to the post of Chairman a panel of three names has been sent and as per his recommendation, the person named at serial no.1, namely Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava may be nominated as the Chairman. This letter was forwarded on 1.12.2020 and as contained in SCA-3. 6. This letter was forwarded on 1.12.2020 and as contained in SCA-3. 6. Unfortunately, Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, who was one of the panelist recommended by the Managing Committee and endorsed by the Director, died on 2.1.2021 before any decision could be taken by the State in terms of the recommendations so made by the Director. It also appears from the record that the said Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava was the Acting Chairman of Committee prior to his name being recommended again on 25.11.2020. In view of the unfortunate death of Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava on 2.1.2021 a communication was addressed to the Director by the Secretary informing about the death of said Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, stating that in view of the death, the panel recommended earlier may not be put up for consideration. Further guidance was also sought in view of the unfortunate death. 7. In response to the said communication sent by the Secretary, a letter addressed by the Director to the Secretary on 13.01.2021, wherein he recorded that the name of Sri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, the petitioner herein as recommended by the Managing Committee on 6.1.2021 shall continue to be the caretaker Chairman being the senior most till steps are taken for a decision for appointment of the new Chairman and Officiating Chairman and was appointed as Officiating Chairman till the society takes a decision for appointment of the caretaker Chairman in terms of the Scheme of Administration. 8. In pursuance to the directions so given, a meeting was once again held comprising of the seven members in which three decisions were taken. The first decision is not relevant to this lis. The second decision pertains to the earlier panel sent on 25.11.2020 and in context of the same a decision was taken by the Committee to cancel the same and to sent a new panel, simultaneously the proposal no.3 comprised of three persons being named in the fresh panel for being sent to the Director/State for its approval. The said three names were that of the petitioner one Sri Sudhir Kumar Srivastava and one Sri Kamlesh Kumar Srivstava. The further decision was taken by the Committee that till the decision is taken by the State Government/Director the petitioner shall continue to be the Officiating Chairman. The said three names were that of the petitioner one Sri Sudhir Kumar Srivastava and one Sri Kamlesh Kumar Srivstava. The further decision was taken by the Committee that till the decision is taken by the State Government/Director the petitioner shall continue to be the Officiating Chairman. The said resolution passed by the Committee was forwarded by the Director to the State and on the said date itself he recommended that the panelist no.1, being the petitioner herein may be recommended by the State. 9. From the perusal of the record, it appears that certain complaints were made in the manner of appointment, as such, the State Government proceeded to pass the order dated 22.12.2021 (SCA-1) recording that the legal opinion was obtained from the Legal Department of the State to the effect that after the death of Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, the first panel survived and would not come to an end. In terms of the opinion so received the State Government was of the view that a fresh proposal should be sent to the State. This communication was written by the State to the Director. The Director in response to the said communication dated 22.12.2021 wrote a letter on 24.12.2021 requesting that the State should take a decision in view of the Scheme of Administration as per earlier proposal dated 1.12.2020. In terms of the said, the impugned order dated 12.05.2022 came to be passed, wherein the respondent no.4 whose name was at serial no.2 in first panel was nominated to act as the Chairman of the Town Polytechnic. The said order is under challenge. 10. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the Scheme of Administration, the Society and the managing committee were duly authorized to recommend the names of the persons as was done on 25.11.2020. He further argues that in terms of Clause 2 (b) of Clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration, the Committee of Management was duly empowered to sent three fresh names, in case the State Government had failed to act/nominate any person as a Chairman and thus in terms of said powers conferred upon the Committee of Management, the Committee of Management had taken a decision recommending the panel of three new names including the name of the petitioner. He further argues that finding no fault with the said recommendation sent comprising of a second panel of three names, the Director had not done anything wrong in the same and rightly recommended the name of the petitioner, being the senior most and at serial no.1 amongst the three panelist (second panel) for nomination to the State. He further argues that once one of the panelists of the first panel sent by Committee of Management had died, the only recourse open to the Committee of Management was to resort to Clause 2 (b) of Clause 7 which the Committee of Management did and forwarded three fresh names. He argues that in any event when the Committee of Management had taken a decision that the first panel sent by it would come to an end, it was not open to the State Government to have nominated the persons out of the first panel whose life has come to an end. In the light of the said he argues that the order nominating the respondent no.4 as the Chairman is contrary to the Scheme of Administration and thus bad in law. In the context of the said he argues that the first prayer made in the petition is liable to be allowed. He lastly argues that the name of the petitioner was recommended in the second panel which was constituted in terms of the powers conferred under Rule 7 (Rule 2-B) of the Scheme of Administration and thus the State Government was bound to nominate any person out of the said panel and the petitioner being placed at serial no.1 in the second panel ought to have been considered by the State Government, which the State Government has failed to do by recommending the name of respondent no.4, thus seeks a direction commanding the respondent nos.1 to 3 to nominate one person out of the second panel sent to the State comprising of three persons therein. 11. Mr. 11. Mr. Anand Mani Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 opposes the prayer made by the petitioner, in support of the said he argues that the State Government had taken the legal opinion to the effect that after the death of one of the persons comprised in panel of three persons, the panel would not come to an end, as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner and thus the State Government was well within its right to nominate one of the two other surviving panelist in the first panel. He further argues that he had raised a preliminary objection that the present petition filed at the instance of the Committee of Management showing the petitioner no.2 to be the officiating chairman was not maintainable. He further argues that even for the prayer made in the writ petition the petitioner no.2 in his personal capacity is also not authorized to seek the reliefs. He thus argues that there is no fault in the State Government taking the decision to nominate the respondent no.4 as the Chairman and the same is also in consonance of the Scheme of Administration and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. He also argues that the appointment of the petitioner as an Officiating Chairman itself is doubtful and is contrary to the mandate of Scheme of Administration. He argues that the appointment of the petitioner as the Officiating Chairman is without there being any agenda and, as such, militates the mandate of the Scheme of Administration. He further argues that the recommendation of the name of the respondent no.4 sent through panel dated 24.12.201 has never been under challenge. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder argues that the legal opinion upon which the impugned order has been passed has no legal basis and is prima facie faulty. He further argues that even in terms of the Scheme of Administration it is incumbent that the State Government takes a decision to nominate one person out of 'three persons' recommended through a panel comprising of three persons and thus a panel comprising of two persons would not satisfy the requirements as prescribed under the Scheme of Administration. He further argues that even in terms of the Scheme of Administration it is incumbent that the State Government takes a decision to nominate one person out of 'three persons' recommended through a panel comprising of three persons and thus a panel comprising of two persons would not satisfy the requirements as prescribed under the Scheme of Administration. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the recommendations of the Director dated 13.1.2021 for sending the second panel and the resolution of the Committee appointing the petitioner as the officiating chairman and sending the name of three new panelists was never under challenge and that question cannot be assailed in the present proceedings. 13. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State justifies the action and states that the decision was taken based upon the legal opinion received from the Legal Department and the same cannot be faulted with. He argues that life of a panel does not come to an end after the death of one of the panelist and thus opposes the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on that ground. He further argues that no mala fides can be found with the action of the State which has chosen one of the persons nominated in the first panel and thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. In view of the arguments raised at the bar and as recorded above, on one hand learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in terms of Scheme of Administration, the first panel of three names send stood lapsed on account of death of one of the panelist and thus in terms of Scheme of Administration the Committee was well within its rights to chose another panel and on the other hand learned counsel for the respondents argues that merely because one of the members of the panel recommended has died, the same would not come to an end. 15. To appreciate the argument, it is essential to see Scheme of Administration which provides for the manner in which the Chairman shall be nominated by the State Government. Clause 7 (2) (a) and (2) (b) provides for constitution of a panel of three persons and in the absence of State Government not naming one of the persons, it confers a right to constitute another panel. Clause 7 (2) (a) and (2) (b) provides for constitution of a panel of three persons and in the absence of State Government not naming one of the persons, it confers a right to constitute another panel. Normally there would be no difficulty in interpreting the said two clauses, however, in the present case the issue that is relevant to be considered is that the second part of Clause 7 (2) (a) which provides that the State Government is bound to take a decision out of three names referred in the panel and the second part of the Clause 9 (2) (b) which restricts the name of the inclusion of names included in first panel. While interpreting the same, it is essential to interpret the said provisions harmoniously by resorting to purposive interpretation. The intent and purpose of the said clause is that the State Government should get an opportunity to nominate the person as a Chairman out of three persons at the first instance and if the State Government does not take a decision the name of three different persons is to be forwarded. If one of the persons recommended in the panel of three members dies naturally the State Government would be deprived of choosing one of the members out of three persons and the State Government would have to chose one of two persons named in the panel, which has been done in the present case. There is another aspect of the matter that if the first panel does not comprise of three names, the second panel of of three persons has to be different from the first named panel. To resolve the said conflict and to ensure that the Committee can take a decision on three names and no one is barred from his name being considered, the only conclusion that can be derived is that after the death of one person named in the first panel, the panel seizes to be a validly recommended panel as has it ceases to be of three persons which are required under the second part of Clause 7 (2) (a). My view on this issue is that after one of the persons named in the first panel had died, the right of the Committee of Management will be well within its rights to constitute and recommend a new panel and not a second panel under Clause 7 (2) (b). My view on this issue is that after one of the persons named in the first panel had died, the right of the Committee of Management will be well within its rights to constitute and recommend a new panel and not a second panel under Clause 7 (2) (b). It is thus essential that the first panel be reconstituted and recommended by the Committee in terms of Clause 2 (a). 16. In the present case, the State Government has clearly erred in accepting and nominating the respondent no.4 for the post of Chairman out of two surviving members of the first panel as the State Government never had three persons before it for taking a decision. In view of the above, the claim of the petitioner to be considered for appointment on the basis of constitution of second panel also merits rejection, inasmuch as while recommending the name of the three persons in the second panel, the right of consideration of two panelists recommended by first panel was taken away without there being any fault of theirs. On the basis of interpretation as given above, the order dated 12.05.2022 is set aside with direction that the Committee of Management of Town Polytechnic, Ballia would convene a meeting and take a decision after approval of the society in terms of Clause 7 (2) (a) of the Scheme of Administration afresh in accordance with law. It is clarified that all the names including the name of the respondent no.4 shall not be barred for consideration by the Managing Committee. 17. On the issue of petitioner being appointed as officiating chairman as raised by learned counsel for the respondents, and I am not inclined to go into the said question as there is no challenge to the appointment of the petitioner as officiating chairman. 18. It is thus directed that the Managing Committee shall take a decision as directed above with all expedition for nominating a panel of three persons and shall forward the same to the Director, who in turn shall forward the same for approval before the State Government and the State Government will take a decision nominating the Chairman in terms of powers conferred upon the State by virtue of the Scheme of Administration. The entire exercise of calling for a meeting, recommending the panel, forwarding the same to the Director, the recommendation of the Director and of ultimate decision by the State Government shall be done with all expedition, preferably within a period of three months from today. 19. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to communicate this order to the State Government for its compliance in accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the validity of the petitioner being appointed as caretaker Chairman as the same is not under challenge in the present writ petition. 20. The writ petition with the aforesaid observations/directions stands disposed of finally. 21. No order as to the costs.