JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - By this petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution the petitioner challenges the validity of the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 14th July, 1981 passed under Section 16-A (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, recongnising the Respondent 3 as the duly elected Manager of the Committee of Management of the Janta Inter College, Thekma Bijaili, District Azamgarh. 2. In respect of the committee of Management of this College, a dispute arose between Ram Sewak Rai on the one hand and Rajendra Rai, Respondent no. 3 on the ether hand in 1978. Rain Sewak Rai claimed himself to be the duly elected Manager of the Committee of Management having been elected on 16th April, 1978. Contrary to this Rajendra Rai asserted that Ram Sewak Rai was not elected on 16th April, 1973 and that he had been elected as Manager by the Members consuming the Committee of Management on a date different than 16th April, 1978. This dispute was taken to the District Inspector of Schools, who any an order dated 8th July, 1980 held that the Committee of Management of which Ram Sewak Rai was the Manager, was duly elected. He accordingly attested the signatures of Ram Sewak Rai and accorded his app,oval to his election. Aggrieved by this order of the District Inspector of Schools Rajendra Rai filed a writ petition in this Court, which was dismissed summarily. Immediately after the dismissal of the writ petition, Respondent no. 3 approached Sri Indu Prakash Singh, Deputy Director of Education for exercising the powers of an Arbitrator under Paragraph 20 of the Scheme of Administration. The Deputy Director of Education passed an order on the 15th July, 1980 and stayed cue order of the District. inspector of Schools recognising the petitioner Ram Sewak Rai as the Manager. The said order was communicated to the petitioner by the District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 21st July, 1980. Thereupon, the petitioner Ram Sewak Rai filed writ petition no. 7482 of 1980. A division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition on 25th September, 1980 and quashed the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 15th July, I960 by which he had assumed the functions of Arbitrator and had stayed the recognition granted by the District Inspector of Schools. 7482 of 1980. A division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition on 25th September, 1980 and quashed the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 15th July, I960 by which he had assumed the functions of Arbitrator and had stayed the recognition granted by the District Inspector of Schools. For deciding the writ petition the Division Bench relied upon a decision of a Full Bench of this Court reported in Committee of Management and another v. The Deputy Director of Education and others, [1980 ALJ 683 : 1980 UPLBEC 183 (FB)]. 3. As a result of the quashing of the order of the Deputy Director of Education on 25th September, 1980, the petitioner Ram Sewak Rai became entitled to assume the charge of the office. On account of the order passed on 15th July, 1980 the Controller appointed by the Deputy Director of Education had taken over the management. The petitioners case is that Indu Prakash Singh, the Deputy Director of Education was biased against the petitioner and wanted to harm him for having approached this court. He delayed the handing over of the charge till the notice of the contempt petition filed by the petitioner was served upon him. However, it is not necessary to deal with that question. 4. From the order of the Deputy Director of Education it appears that before the District Inspector of Schools, the petitioner on the one hand and the Respondent no. 3 on the other started claiming rights of managership on the basis of the elections held by them on 12th April, 1981 and 1st March, 1981 respectively. The petitioner had urged that in a duly convened meeting Ram Sewak Rai had been elected as Manager on 16-4-1981 whereas the case of Rajendra Rai was that no election had taken place on the aforesaid date. He claimed himself to have been elected as Manager by the members of the Committee of Management Finding that there was a dispute about the management the District Inspector of Schools referred the same to the Deputy Director of Education under Section 16-A (7) on the 6th April, 1981. Before the Deputy Director of Education both sides appeared. He claimed himself to have been elected as Manager by the members of the Committee of Management Finding that there was a dispute about the management the District Inspector of Schools referred the same to the Deputy Director of Education under Section 16-A (7) on the 6th April, 1981. Before the Deputy Director of Education both sides appeared. The Deputy Director of Education Sri Indu Prakash Singh found on 14th July, 1981 that the respondent Rajendra Rai had been elected as the Manager of the Committee of Management on the 1st March, 1981 which information had been sent through a representation dated 30th May, 1981. On the basis of the said representation the Deputy Director of Education found that Palak Dhari Singh was elected as the President on the aforesaid date and Rajendra Rai as Manager. He did not give any finding on the claim of Ram Sewak Rai that the elections were held on 12th April, 1981. 5. Before the Deputy Director of Education, the question required to be decided was as to who was in control of the management. This question was linked with the decision about the validity of the election pleaded by the petitioner as well as by the Respondent no. 3. For this purpose the Deputy Director of Education should have examined the evidence of the parties and given a finding on the same. He did not address himself to this controversy and was led away by irrelevant considerations for deciding the dispute referred to him. As the finding given by him is based on irrelevant grounds, the order can not be sustained. 6. What is worthy of being noted is that he attached great importance to the fact that as the last election took place on 12th January, 1978 the present election should have been held on or before that date. This finding of the Deputy Director of Education is apparently wrong inasmuch as the election in 197s took place on 16th April, 1978 and not on 12th January, 1978. For holding that the elections had taken place on 12th January, 1978 the Deputy Director of Education placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court given in Writ Petition No. 7482 of 1980 Committee of Management v. U.P. Shiksha Nideshak and others, decided on 26-9-1980. It is true that in the aforesaid judgment the date given for the election was 12th January, 19-8. It is true that in the aforesaid judgment the date given for the election was 12th January, 19-8. This was, however, a typographical mistake which was subsequently corrected by the court deciding the aforesaid writ petition on 27th August, 1981. When the entire evidence of the parties was before him the Deputy Director of Education could not have taken the date of election from the judgment of the High Court as 12th January, 1978 and not applying his mind to the evidence and given a finding on the same. 7. Further more, to us it does not appeal that simply because the election of Kara Sewak Rai was not held on 12th April, 1978 (assuming the same to be correct) that the election of Ram Sewak could be set aside. There is no law and atleast nothing could be shown to us which required that if fresh election were net held within 3 years of the last, the fresh one could be liable to be treated as invalid. The term of a Committee of Management may be 3 years but that by itself is no ground for holding that any election held after the expiry of that term would be void and not capable of any recognition. On this aspect the Deputy Director of Education laid undue emphasis and reached at the wrong conclusion. The Deputy Director of Education apparently erred in holding that the election held on 12th April, 1978 could not be treated as valid. 8. Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent no. 3, urged that the petitioner Ram Sewak Rai had, in fact, never plead before the Deputy Director of Education that the election of the Committee of Management lock place on 12th April, 1981 and that this plea had been raised for the first time in the writ petition. His submission was that before the Deputy Director f Education the Petitioner had also not adduced and evidence in proof of the lection in which Rain Sewak Rai was allegedly elected. 9. His submission was that before the Deputy Director f Education the Petitioner had also not adduced and evidence in proof of the lection in which Rain Sewak Rai was allegedly elected. 9. For the first submission we are of opinion that there is sufficient material before us in the writ petition to reach to the conclusion that the petitioner had taken up that plea before the Deputy Director of Education and had claimed the right of the managership on the basis of the election held on J2th April, 1981- So far as the question oi evidence is concerned, we may only refer to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner along with which a list of documents filed before the Deputy Director of Education had been annexed. 10. Argument were made before us by the petitioners learned counsel also on the point that Sri Indu Prakash sing was biased and the impugned order was liable to be set aside on that ground alone. For the purpose of proving his case the petitioners learned counsel took us through the writ petition and submitted that as contempt proceedings had been started against Indu Prakash Singh by the petitioner Ram Sewak, the annoyance entertained by the former was natural. He also urged that there can be no direct evidence of the proof of bias and the same has to be inferred from the circumstances on the record. Be that as it may, since who have decided the writ petition on merits and have found the impugned order unsustainable, we do not wish to record any finding on this controversy. 11. In reply to the aforesaid point the submission made on behalf of Respondent no. 3 was that as the petitioner had voluntarily appeared before the Deputy Director of Education and had taken a chance of having a favourable decision from him, it was not now open to him to turn round and question the order on the ground that the Deputy Director of Education was biased. 12. For what we have said above, we find that the order of the Deputy Director of Education is illegal and wrong. It suffers from mistaken-apparent on the face of the record. The said order of the Deputy Director of Education is liable to be quashed with the direction to decide the matter afresh. 12. For what we have said above, we find that the order of the Deputy Director of Education is illegal and wrong. It suffers from mistaken-apparent on the face of the record. The said order of the Deputy Director of Education is liable to be quashed with the direction to decide the matter afresh. However, to obviate further allegations of bias, in the interest.of justice we consider it appropriate to direct the Director of Education either to decide the matter fer the case to some other Deputy Director of Education excepting Sri Indu Prakash Singh. 13. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 15th July, 1981, is quashed. The Director of Education is directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law either himself or through come other Deputy Director except Sri Indu Prakash Singh. By this judgment we have only set aside the order of the Deputy Director of Education. As we are not concerned with giving of a direction as to which of the parties will manage the institution. We refrain from doing so. The position as it existed before passing of the impugned order may continue. There shall be no order as to costs.