The three-month election-resolution requirement is directory where authorities cause delay after timely initiation.

The petitioner Committee’s last election was held on 27 August 2023.

The parties disputed whether its three-year term, with the additional one-month period under the Scheme of Administration, expired on 26 or 30 September 2026.

At a meeting on 13 July 2026, the Committee resolved to hold elections and sought appointment of an Election Officer.

The District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) sought further documents but did not appoint an Election Officer; the Committee maintained that the election process was delayed by the authorities.

The DIOS opposed the election, arguing that the resolution had not been passed at least three months before the term’s expiry, as required by Clause 10 of the Scheme.

The petitioner also relied on a Director of Education notification dated 10 April 2026, which contemplated a DIOS notice where a Committee’s term had one month remaining.

1. Whether the Committee could proceed with an election after its term expired where it had initiated the process before expiry but the election was not held due to the authorities’ delay.

2. Whether failure to pass the election resolution at least three months before the term’s expiry was fatal to the Committee’s right to hold the election.

Clause 9 of the Scheme of Administration provides for a three-year term and addresses the consequences of the term’s expiry; Clause 10 prescribes the election procedure, including steps to be taken before expiry.

Section 16-A(5) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 provides for approval of an institution’s Scheme of Administration, including changes or amendments.

The Court considered the Director of Education’s notification dated 10 April 2026, which stated that the DIOS must give notice to institutions whose Committee’s term has one month remaining, and that the Scheme’s requirements remain applicable where it requires DIOS approval.

The Court also considered Committee of Management v. Regional Education Committee, Meerut Region, Meerut, (2009) 4 UPLBEC 3125, and Krishna Dutt Bajpai v. District Inspector of Schools, Rai Bareli, 1985 UPLBEC 551, which were cited for the propositions that a Scheme of Administration is not equivalent to subordinate legislation and that an election process initiated before expiry should not necessarily fail because the term expires while the process is pending.

It further considered Aley Ahmad Abadi v. DIOS, 1976 AWC 731, and Committee of Management, Sunahari Lal Bal Mukund Inter College v. Regional Education Committee, 2009 (4) AWC 3523, the latter supporting the proposition that an election held shortly after expiry is not, for that reason alone, invalid where the resolution to hold it was passed beforehand.

The Court found that the Committee had resolved to hold elections on 13 July 2026, before the term’s expiry, and that the DIOS had taken cognizance of the matter and sought documents.

In those circumstances, the DIOS could not subsequently reject the election process on the ground that the resolution had not been passed three months before expiry.

The Court also considered that the 10 April notification contemplated DIOS notice when one month remained, but no such notice had been given.

It therefore held that the three-month requirement could not be treated as mandatory so as to extinguish the Committee’s right to hold an election, particularly where the process had been initiated in advance and the delay was not attributable to the Committee.

It directed the DIOS to appoint an Election Officer within one week of service of the certified order, and directed that the Election Officer conduct the election within the following two months in accordance with the Scheme of Administration.

The writ petition was allowed.