- (1.) O. P. Jain, J. Heard Sri Dr. R. G. Padia, Sri K. N. Rai and Sri Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M. D. Singh and S. P. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents. The learned Standing Counsel has also been heard.
(2.) THE above two writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment because Writ Petition No. 20915/94 is the main petition and Writ Petition No. 30699/94 is of a consequential nature. The dispute between the parties relates to the Management of Nehru Intermediate College. One group is led by Sri Rana Pratap Singh and the other group is led by Sri Awadesh Kumar Singh. The dispute between the two group is continuing from 1982. It is not necessary to trace a history of the litigation between the parties because the same is given in Annexure '14' judgment of this Court. It is sufficient to say that while giving judgment Annexure '14' this Court was dealing with two writ petitions and on 21-9- 1993 this Court quashed the order dated 3-6-1993 passed by the D. I. O. S. and also quashed another order passed by the D. I. O. S. on 18-9-1993. It was held that there was a dispute between two rival committee and, therefore, the D. I. O. S. should have referred the matter to the Dy. Director of Education under Sec tion i6-A (7) of the Act, 1921. The court directed the D. I. O. S. to refer the dispute to the Dy. Director within one month and further directed the Dy. Director of Eduction to decide the matter within four months. In pursuance of this order the Dy. Director of Education has passed impugned order Annexure '20' dated 24-5-1994. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the Dy. Director has not given any finding as to which of the rival claimants was in effective control of the Institution and he has gone into the legality of the election.
(3.) BOTH the parties have relied on some authorities in respect of their respective contentions. 1988 (1 ) UPLBEC 402 and 1057 have been cited in sup port of the contention that the Dy. Director has to examine the validity of elec tion before coming to the conclusion that a particular party was in effective control of the Management of the Institution. 1982 UP LBEC 38 and 1985 ALJ 471 have also been cited in support of the same contentions, 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1042 Para 16 has also been cited in which it has been held that in an enquiry to be made under the provisions of Section 16- A (7) the D. D. B. has to decide as to which of the two rival Committee of Management is in effective control of the Institution. The D. D. E. has also to satisfy himself that the Committee of Management recognised by him to be in effective control has been duly elected. The learned counsel for copy of the judgment of Hon'blen the respondent has produced a photo Supreme Court in SLP No. 18066-67/93. A perusal of that judgment shows that in cited case the Dy. Director had given a clear finding that neither of the two factions were in the effective control of the Management of the Institution in dispute on the said date. In the case before this Court no such finding has been recorded by the Dy. Director and, therefore, the ruling relied upon by the respondent is not applicable to the facts of the case.;