- (1.) O. P. Jain, J. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order, Annexure '12' to the writ petition dated 14th September, 1993 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Mau.
(2.) THE brief facts leading to this order are that the election of the Executive Committee was held on 4th October, 1992 and according to the petitioner the office bearers were elected on 28-2-1993. Petitioners submitted the papers to the D. LO. S. on 4-3-1993 but for one reason or the other the D. I. O. S. did not pass any order on the papers, submitted by the petitioners. THE petitioners, therefore, filed writ petition No, 19130 of 1993 and they obtained an interim order on 26-5-1993 which runs as under : "in the meantime the D. I. O. S. concerned may pass appropriate order is papers have been sent by the petitioners who is said to have sent the papers for attestation of signature on the basis of r ion on 4-10- 1992. If the D. I. O. S. has received the papers, as aged by the petitioner, he will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording opportunity, if any, to any party within 4 weeks of date of production of certified copy of this order or to show cause within the same period. He will also permit the peti tioners for making arrangement for interim period. " After passing of the above order by this Court, the D. I. O. S. heard the parties. The respondents relied on the election dated 14-4-1993 and by the impugned order the D. I. O. S. recognised the election dated 14-4-1993. He further held that the election dated 28-2-1993 was not the election of the Committee of Management but it was the election of Sahayak Samiti. Being aggrieved against the order dated 14th September, 1993 this writ petition has been filed. ~ I have heard Sri S. N. Srivastava for the petitioner and Sri R. N. Singh for the respondent. Learned Standing Counsel has argued the case on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
(3.) IT is argued on behalf of the petitioners that once there were two rival claimants before the D. I. O. S. he had no option but to refer the dispute to the Dy. Director of Education under Section 16-A (7) of the Act of 1921. This legal proposition is supported by 1989 ALR 185-Committee of Manage ment Gandhi Vidyapeeth Inter College v. D. I. O. S. Kanpur Dehat. In fact there in no dispute regarding the principles. The contention on behalf of the respondent is that the D. I. O. S. did not have a rival claimants before him and, therefore, he need not have referred the dispute to the Dy. Director of Education. The Second contention on behalf of the respondents is that the D. I. O. S. was simply obeying the mandamus issued by this Court on 26-5-1993 and, therefore, no fault can be found with his order on this point. Learned counsel for the respondent has cited 1964 ALJ 155, para 10 at page 162 in support of the contention that a party who has submitted to jurisdiction and has taken a chance of the matter being decided in its favour cannot turn around and question the jurisdiction of the same authority.;