The scheme of administration as is contained in annexure no. 1 to the writ petition is not in issue. Although a feeble attempt is made to question the said scheme of administration but no other scheme of administration has been placed on record by the petitioner either. Merely saying that a different scheme exists would not suffice. The competent authority is otherwise expected to examine as to which of the scheme of administration is approved for managing the affairs of the educational institution and the elections are also required to be conducted only as per it. It is not in issue that an Authorised Controller existed earlier in the institution and he finalised a list of members of the general body of the institution in the year 2014 on the basis of which an election was also held in the year 2014. This election, however, was challenged on the ground that the elected Manager was actually a clerk in a different educational institution, and, therefore, the election was bad. The educational authority found substance in the challenge and rejected the election held in the year 2014 by the Authorised Controller with a direction to conduct as a fresh election for constituting the committee of management of the educational institution. This order of the Joint Director of Education dated 24.5.2017 is not in issue. It is also admitted that this order has not been interfered with by this Court. The election held to constitute the managing committee of the educational institution in the year 2014, therefore, has lost its efficacy. The Authorised Controller was again appointed in the year 2018 pursuant to the order passed by the Joint Director of Education dated 24.5.2017. The Authorised Controller has infact conducted the election in which the petitioner committee has been elected in February, 2019. No other person had any authority to conduct the election. The election conducted by respondent no.4, therefore, is clearly contrary to the scheme of administration inasmuch as after the previous election were set aside and the term of outgoing recognised committee had already expired prior to 2014, the 4th respondent had no authority to conduct the election. The Regional Level Committee clearly fell in error in accepting the claim of election set up by the fourth respondent. Challenge laid to the order of the Regional Level Committee for such reasons, therefore, is liable to be sustained.
