Satish Chandra, C.J. - (1.) The dispute in the present writ petition relates to the Management of Islamia Inter College, Firozabad. District Agra According to the petitioners, petitioner no. 3 Mohd. Azim is the Manager-cum Secretary of the College while petitioner no. 4 is the President. The matter was decided by the District Inspector of Schools by ah order dated 23rd June, 1981 whereby he held in substance that the Managing Committee of which Sri Rafi Uddin respondent no. 2 was the Manager, the only elected and was in actual control of the institution and he, therefore, attested Sri Raft Uddins signatures.
(2.) In the petition, the inspectors order has been challenged on a variety of ground. In the first place the learned counsel admitted that the Inspector of schools had no jurisdiction to decide this dispute became by sub-sect,on (7) to section 16 A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, the jurisdiction has been conferred on the Regional Deputy Director of Education. This subsection came on the statute book by U.P. Act no. 1 of 1981 which crime into force on 11th February, 1981. Thus long prior to the date of the decision by the Inspector, he had lost jurisdiction to decide the controversy between the parties. For the respondents it has been submitted that the elections of Che Managing Committee of the College were held on 16th July, 1980. Disputes having arises, they were referred to the District Inspector of Schools. Since respondent no. 2 felt that the Inspector was not rendering his decision, he filed a writ petition no. 8608 of 1980 in this Court for a mandamus directing the District Inspector of schools to recognise him as Manager. In that writ petition a learned single Judge of this Court on 12.5.1981 passed an order indicating that the question whether the elections held on 6ch July, 1980 were valid, was pending decision. There was no interim order directing the District Inspector of Schools not to decide the said matter and mere seemed to be no justification in keeping the matter pending the Standing Counsel stated that he would see to it that the matter was decided by the District Inspector of Schools within six weeks. This led the Inspector to consider the matter a id lie passed the impugned order on 23rd June, 1981.
(3.) It is, thus, apparent that the District Inspector of Schools was seized of the matter soon after the alleged election in July 1980 were held since the Inspector was not deciding the matter speedily. The respondents side came to this Court a-id this Court also indicated that the Inspector should decide the dispute within six weeks. In this situation it is clear that the dispute with respect to the management of this institution was pending deposal before the Inspector since before the coming into force of subsection (7) of section 16A. On its language, sub-section (7) is not retrospective in operation. There in nothing in it to indicate that the pending dispute should be transferred to the Regional Depute Director for adjudication. In our opinion sub-section (7) of section 16-A is not attracted to the present case.;