The main legal point established in the judgment is that the commencement of the term of the committee of management is dependent on the date of assuming office and the recognition by the D.I.O.S., and the term does not expire if it never commenced due to the fault of the authorized controller or the D.I.O.S.

( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1, the District Inspector of Schools, Moradabad, to attest the signature of petitioner No. 2 as Manager of the committee of management on the basis of the election held on 14. 9. 1997. A further prayer has been made that the letter dated 11. 9. 1997 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) as issued by the respondent No. 1 be also quashed.

( 2 ) WHEN the matter was taken up, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that this writ petition, by lapse of time, has become infructuous as the term of the committee of management as provided under the Scheme of Administration is 3 years and thereafter, for 1 month, the office-bearers of the old committee can continue and, therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the election in which the petitioners claim to have been elected being of the year 1997, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before the Court Clause 8 and Sub-clause 4 of clause 9 of the Scheme of Administration which has been annexed as Annexure-1 along with the impleadment application by Sri Daman Singh and others. The aforesaid Clause 8 and Sub-clause (4) of Clause 9 for convenience is hereby reproduced as under :. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). .

( 3 ) IN view of the aforesaid preliminary objection, matter was heard on this issue. For deciding the aforesaid preliminary issue as to whether the writ petition has become infructuous as argued by learned counsel for the respondents, a reference to certain facts will be necessary which come out from the narration of the facts as have been pleaded in the writ petition.

( 4 ) THE last election of the previous committee of management was held on 12. 3. 1994. The term being 3 years, it was to continue upto 11th March, 1997 and as fresh election to constitute the committee of management could not take place within 1 month of the expiry of the term of out going committee of management, the D. I. O. S. , by order dated 6. 5. 1997. appointed the respondent No. 2 as authorised controller of the college as contemplated under the Scheme of administration with a direction to hold elections of the new committee of management within a period of 6 months. The authorised controller took charge of the affairs of the college on 7th march, 1997 and with a purpose to hold the elections, wrote a letter on 2. 9. 1997 to the District inspector of Schools for according permission to hold election. On that very day, 2 other letters were written by him to the D. I. O. S. by which, he gave information about the appointment of respondent No. 3 as Election Officer and requested that if the department wants to appoint an observer, that may be made. The D. I. O. S. by his letter dated 3. 9. 1997. In reference to the letters of the authorised controller dated 2. 9. 1997, granted permission according approval to the nomination of the 3rd respondent as Election Officer with a further direction for the publication of notice of the elections in the daily news paper. It has been stated that after due publication, ultimately elections took place on 14. 9. 1997, upon which the Election Officer sent information about the proceedings of the elections to the D. I. O. S. on 14. 9. 1997, itself. It is said that the president of the committee of management so elected per information of the Election Officer dated 14. 9. 1997, also wrote to the D. I. O. S. for attesting the signature of the petitioner No. 2. Inquiry was made from the office of D. I. O. S. upon which it was revealed that signature was not attested because of the reason that a letter was already sent from the office of the respondent No. 1 on 11. 9. 1997, although same was never received by the Election Officer, for staying the election which was to take place on 14. 9. 1997. It is by this action on the pa