- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. Dispute here relates to the validity of the constitution of the Committee of Management of an Intermediate College, known as Nanigram Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Dulhara, district Agra (herein after referred to as the College ). Both the groups who are represented by the appellants and the respondent No. 1, claimed to have held election of the Management Committee of the College on 19-7- 1992, information about which was given by them separately to the District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter referred to as the D. I. O. S. ). The D. I. O. S. vide order dated 27-6-1994 recognis ed the Committee of Management of which Sri Vireodra Singh was the Manager and accordingly attested his signature as the Manager of the College. On 7/15-7-1994 the D. I. O. S. passed two more orders. One of the orders was for single operation of the account of the college by him under Section 5 (1) (d) of the U. P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salary to the Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. By the second order, the D. I. O. S. referred the dispute about the management of the college under Section 16-A (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the Deputy Director of Education.
(2.) THE respondent No. 1 herein being aggrieved by the above orders of D. I. O. S. , filed the writ petition before this Court. This writ petition has been allowed in part by learned Single Judge, who quashed the order dated 27-6-1994, whereby the Committee of Management of the appellants was recognised and the signature of its Manager, Sri Virendra Singh, was attested, but the order dated 7/15-7-1994 for single operation of the account of the college was not set aside. However the interim order dated 21-7- 1994, whereby operation of the order of single operation was stayed during the pendency of the writ petition, was permitted to continue till the dispute is decided by the Deputy Director, unless any interim arrangement is made by him earlier and the Deputy Director was directed to decide the dispute within two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of the judgment before him. When there is a dispute about the right to manage the Intermediate College between two or more groups of the Management the D. I. O. S. has no jurisdiction to recognise the Committee of Management of any of the groups. Under these circumstances, he has to refer the dispute to the Deputy Director of Education under Section 16-A- (7) of the Act for his decision. Deputy Director of Education has the power not only to decide the dispute finally but also to make an interim arrangement for management of the College. The order dated 27-6-1994 passed by the D. I. O. S. , recognising the Committee of Management of the appellants and attesting the signature of its Manager, was obviously without jurisdiction and the learned Single Judge was thus fully justified to quash that order. Sri A. Kumar learned counsel for the appellants has not disputed the correctness of the above position before the learned Single Judge as well as before us. The serious grievance of the learned counsel for the appellate is that learned Single Judge was not justified to continue the interim order dated 21-7-1994 passed during the pendency of the writ petition after its disposal. Normally when the writ petition is disposed of, the interim order passed there in come to an end automatically. But in the instant case, the learned Single Judge has directed the continuance of the interim order till the disposal by the Deputy Director under Section 16-A (7) of the Act. It is because of the reason that the learned Judge has directed the Deputy Director to decide the dispute within two months. It was thus thought proper not to disturb the working of the College for the period of two months and, therefore, it was directed that interim order shall continue. The obvious result was that the status quo as on the date of judgment regarding management of the college was directed to continue, for a period of two months unless some interim arrangement is made by Deputy Director earlier.
(3.) ANOTHER grievance of the learned counsel for the appellants is that Deputy Director will decide the dispute under Section 16-A (7) of the Act on the basis of the effective control of the College and as the respondent No. 1, in view of the interim order passed by the court, is in effective control, Deputy Director will have no option but to decide m his favour. This apprehension is misconceived. The learned Single Judge, the relevant extract from whose judgment is reproduced below, has held that the Deputy Director has to resolve the dispute on the basis of effective control and while doing so, he has to decide incidently the question about the validity of the election also. "it needs no clarification that the dispute under Section 16-A (7) has to be resolved on the basis of the effective actual control as indicated in the section itself but incidently the Deputy Director of Educa tion can decide the question as to the validity of the election including the question as to who amongst the rival claimants was entitled to hold the election. " For reasons given above this appeal is dismissed with direction to the Deputy Director of Education to decide the dispute referred to him by the DIGS within a period of two months from the date the certified copy of the judgment of this Court is presented before him. Learned counsel for both the parties have given undertaking before us that the certified copy of the judge ment of the learned Single Judge alongwith certified copy of this Judgment will be filed by them before the Deputy Director within six weeks from today.;