V. K. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) BY an order dated September 18, 1984 the Deputy Director of Education Meerut took the view that the election said to have been held by the rival claimants to the Committee of Management in respect of the Committee of Management of Subhash Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalya Rajpura (Mowana) Road, Meerut in the year 1984, was invalid for several reasons as mentioned in the order. He purported to appoint the Associate District Inspector of Schools, Meerut as Administrator for holding fresh election in addition to his enjoying the powers of the Committee of Management. This, according to the Deputy Director of Education, was being directed by him in exercise of powers contained in clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration of the institution. The present petitioner claimed that the election was duly held on June 19, 1984 after complying with all the legal formalities. Sri Ziley Singh, the third respondent claimed that the Committee of Management of which he was the Manager was the duly constituted committee of Management. This too was, however, not accepted by the Deputy Director of Education.
(2.) THE Committee of Management of which the second petitioner claims to be the Manager, assailed the order of the Deputy Director of Education in the present petition, and the principal argument of Sri S. S. Bhatnagar, who has appeared before us for the petitioners, has been that the Deputy Director of Education, has exceeded his jurisdiction both under clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration and section 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act in passing the impugned order. THE learned Standing counsel has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the Deputy Director of Education, Sri Ziley Singh, the third respondent, has also appeared through Sri P. K. Jain and has filed a counter affidavit. As jointly prayed by the counsel for the parties we are disposing of the matter today finally. A perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education makes it clear that he has taken the view that the elections said to have been held by the petitioners as well as by the third respondent were not duly held. The order further shows that the Deputy Director of Education was of opinion that under clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration he was entitled after holding that the election said to have been held by the parties as not valid, to appoint an administrator to be entrusted with the task of holding the fresh election.' Clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration, which has been quoted in para 20 of the writ petition, however, shows that it was only in case the existing office bearers failed to hold the election, after expiry of three years, within one month and the Committee of Management so elected failed to take over charge that an Administrator could be appointed for holding fresh election. The finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Education is not that he was of opinion that the Committee of Management did not held the election or that the elected Committee failed to take charge before expiry of one month after three years terms. Besides, except incldently, the question about the correctness or otherwise of the election said to have been held, cannot be gone into by the Deputy Director of Education even when he is examining the position under Section 16-A (7; of the Intermediate Education Act. In the present case the Deputy Director of Education has not adverted at all to the question as to which of the rival claimant was in effective control of the management in accordance with the requirements of Section 16-A (7) of the said Act. We feel that the question whether a particular election was held in accordance with the legal provisions in that regard cannot be gone into by the Deputy Director of Education while dealing with the matter under clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration or while considering it under Section 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act, except incidently in the latter case, with a view to decide the question of effective control. The impugned order of the Deputy Director of Education cannot be upheld and is quashed. We direct the parties to bear their own costs.;