The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Scheme of Administration in determining the validity of elections and the timing of the elections.

( 1 ) AS usual, the dispute to share the power to manage the affairs of the Committee of management, has again come up to this Court, by means of this petition. The order challenged in this petition is dated 30. 11. 2000 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2 by which the respondent No. 4 has been held to be the valid manager of the Committee of management.

( 2 ) THERE appears to be no dispute in respect to the validity of the election, which took place on 27. 11. 1995. It is thereafter, in respect to the fresh election/term, the dispute arose. The petitioners claim to have an election in their favour on 21. 8. 1998 and the respondent No. 4 to have been elected on 2. 1. 1999. The papers have been sent to the District Inspector of Schools for attesting the signature in respect to fresh term, was decided by the District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 28. 8. 1998, by which the signature of Vibhuti Rai, the present petitioner was attested, pursuant to the election dated 21. 8. 1998. It appears that thereafter, the matter was again re considered by the District Inspector of Schools on the basis of rival claim of the parties and by order dated 12. 6. 2000, the attestation of signature by then District Inspector of Schools dated 28. 8. 1998 in favour of the present petitioner was re-affirmed. The order dated 12. 6. 2000 was challenged by the respondent No. 4 Ram Briksh Rai by tiling Writ Petition No. 29473 of 2000. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by this Court by its judgment dated 11. 7. 2000 by which the order dated 12. 6. 2000 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Joint Director of education to consider the validity of the election held on 21. 8. 1998 as set up by Vibhuti Rai and consequent attestation dated 28. 8. 1998 and in the event finding goes against the respondent, the joint Director will consider the validity of election dated 2. 1. 1999 set up by Ram Briksh Rai and his claim of attestation of signature, shall be considered. In the meantime, the writ petitioner, i. e. . Ram Briksh Rai was permitted to continue as Manager of the Institution. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the matter was considered by respondent No. 2. On consideration of the facts and material as was placed before the respondent No. 2, he came to the conclusion that the election held on 21. 8. 1998, is not valid and the election as claimed by the present respondent No. 4 dated 2. 1. 1999 is valid and thus it was held that Ram Briksh Rai is in the effective control and he is being approved as valid manager. It is this decision of Joint Director of Education respondent No. 2, which is the subject-matter of challenge before this Court.

( 3 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel and learned counsel who appeared on behalf of respondent No. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 while deciding the matter has not given cogent reason and there is no analysis for arriving at impugned conclusion. It has been submitted that after referring the facts and even after noting down the petitioners contention, no finding has been given on the controversy in issue. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after expiry of the term of old committee, under law, no election could take place by the old Committee in which the respondent No. 4 can be said to have been elected. Learned counsel submits that in view of the admitted facts that the last election took place on 27. 11. 1995, fresh electton should have taken place by 22. 11. 1998. It has been submitted that the election would only have been conducted only by the authorised controller after expiry of period of three years and one month and thus the alleged election said to have taken place on 2. 1. 1999 cannot be said to be valid. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision in Committee of management v. Alleged C