JUDGMENT J. N. Dubey, J. 1. Sri Gandhi Vidyapeeth Inter College, Ghatampur, district Kanpur Dehat is run under a Scheme of Administration framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. It is common case of the parties that an election to constitute the committee of management of the said college was held on 1-4-1988. The parties are, however, divided on the question as to who were the persons elected to constitute the committee of management. According to the petitioners, a committee of management with petitioner no. 2 as its Manager was constituted on that date. On the other hand, respondent no. 2 asserted that no such committee of management as alleged by the petitioners was elected on that date and that another committee of management of which he was the Manager had been elected. The matter was referred to the District Inspector of Schools who, by his order dated 20-4-1988, held that the committee of management of which respondent no. 2 was the Manager was duly constituted committee of management. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since a dispute with respect to management of the institution had come into existence before the District Inspector of Schools he had no jurisdiction to recognise either of the committees of management. The dispute should have been referred to the Regional Deputy Director of Education for decision under Section 16-A (7) of the Act. In Committee of Management S. A. V. Inter College v. District Inspector of Schools (Writ Petition No. 12725 of 1975) a Division Bench of this Court held : "Under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act as well as under the High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, the District Inspector of Schools has to perform various administrative functions of statutory character in collaboration with the management of High Schools and Intermediate Colleges. These duties cannot be discharged by the District Inspector of Schools unless he is in a position to find out on an administrative level as to who are the real office bearers of the College. For this limited purpose the District Inspector of Schools must of necessity satisfy himself as to who, according to him, are validly elected office bearers of the institution. For this limited purpose the District Inspector of Schools must of necessity satisfy himself as to who, according to him, are validly elected office bearers of the institution. If any party feels dissatisfied with the administrative decision taken by the District Inspector of Schools he is at liberty to file a suit against the rival claimants for adjudication of their rights either as office bearers or as members of the Managing Committee. In the event of a decree being obtained by such a party there can be little doubt that the District Inspector of Schools, in case he has taken a wrong decision, will alter his decision and will recognise that party in whose favour decision has been given judicially." 3. In Committee of Management v. The District Inspector of Schools, Meerut, 1978 AWC 124 , this court, relying upon the above decision, held : "Simply because a dispute was raised in regard to the validity of the said election the District Inspector of Schools was not right in taking the view that until the dispute was resolved by a civil court or amicably between the parties it is the office bearers of the old managing committee whose terms had apparently expired would continue to be recognised by him. If the view taken by the Distt. Inspector of Schools is upheld it is likely to lead to disastrous results. For instance even if in a given case fresh election may have validly taken place all that the office bearers of the old committee of management, whose term has expired, need do is to raise a dispute before the District Inspector of Schools and thereby deprive the new office bearers to discharge their functions and themselves continue as office bearers of the committee of management even though their term had expired. " 4. The decision in S. A. V. Inter College v. District Inspector of Schools (Supra) was consistently followed by this Court in several subsequent cases including Committee of Management, Inter College, Nonapur v. Distt. Inspector of Schools, Kanpur, 1979 ALJ 33, Jaswant Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, 1980 UPLBEC 43, Committee of Management, Nonapur Inter College, Kanpur v. The District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur, 1980 UPLBEC 209, and The Committee of Management of Vedic Kanya Inter College, Dadri, Ghaziabad v. The Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, 1st Region, Meerut, 1982 Education Cases 202. Inspector of Schools, Kanpur, 1979 ALJ 33, Jaswant Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, 1980 UPLBEC 43, Committee of Management, Nonapur Inter College, Kanpur v. The District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur, 1980 UPLBEC 209, and The Committee of Management of Vedic Kanya Inter College, Dadri, Ghaziabad v. The Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, 1st Region, Meerut, 1982 Education Cases 202. Section 16-A of U.P. Intermediate Education Act was amended by U.P. Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act 1981 and a new clause (7) was added to it which runs as under : " (7) Whenever there is dispute with respect to the Management of an institution, persons found by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, upon such enquiry as is deemed fit to be in actual control of its affairs may, for purposes of this Act, be recognised to constitute the Committee of Management of such institution until a Court of competent jurisdiction direct otherwise : Provided that the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall, before making an order under this sub-section, afford reasonable opportunity to the rival claimants to make representations in writing. Explanation :- In. determining the question as to who is in actual control of the affairs of the institution, the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall have regard to the control over the funds of the institution and over the administration, the receipt of income from its properties, the Scheme of Administration approved under sub-section (5) and other relevant circumstances." 5. In Gauri Shanker Rai v. Dr. Ram Lakhan Pandey D. I. O. S. Ballia, 1984 UPLBEC 166 deciding this controversy after the introduction of clause (7) in 16-A of the Act a Division Bench of this Court held- "It is, thus, apparent that the impugned order has not been passed under section 16-A (7). It does not purport, directly or indirectly, to determine any dispute between two rival Committees of Management. It does not profess to be an adjudication of the rival claims of the parties. It is a plain and simple, recognition of a new Committee of Management for day to day work of the department such as payment of salary to the teachers and staff of the College. It does not profess to be an adjudication of the rival claims of the parties. It is a plain and simple, recognition of a new Committee of Management for day to day work of the department such as payment of salary to the teachers and staff of the College. In any case, the impugned order does not purport to decide any dispute and consequently it cannot be said that the District Inspector of Schools has arrogated to himself the powers which were exclusively exercisable by the Deputy Director of Education under section 16-A (7). Further, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioners had till the date of the passing of the impugned order by the District Inspector of Schools raised any dispute with regard to the validity of election held on 31st May, 1982. We, therefore, find no merit in the only contention raised in support of the petition. " Although this case was under amended section 16-A (7) of the Act but it cannot be considered to be an authority on the point inasmuch as this controversy was not involved therein. 6. In the Committee of Management, Janta Uchchatar Madhyamic Vidyalaya Mirzapur v. The District Inspector of Schools Mirzapur, 1984 UP LB EC 260 this Court held- "In our opinion, the District Inspector of Schools has not been authorised to pass any such order. The dispute was pending before the Deputy Director of Education. It was not disputed that the Deputy Director of Education has not chosen to issue any such interim orders, even if legally he could issue such interim order. Indeed learned counsel for the respondents were entirely unable to point out any provision either in the Intermediate Education Act or elsewhere which may have conferred upon the District Inspector of Schools the power to issue such interim orders pending the decision of a dispute before the Deputy Director of Education under section 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act. " In Committee of Management, S. M. National Inter College, Machhati, Ghazipur v. The District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur, 1984 UP LB EC 610 this Court held- "From the facts stated above it is obvious that a dispute had come into existence before the District Inspector of Schools. " In Committee of Management, S. M. National Inter College, Machhati, Ghazipur v. The District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur, 1984 UP LB EC 610 this Court held- "From the facts stated above it is obvious that a dispute had come into existence before the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioners had filed a representation dated 24-10-1983 clearly claiming that the new Committee of Management ought not to be recognised and that in law it is the petitioners who are continuing as the validly elected Committee of Management of the institution. The District Inspector of Schools was bound to refer the dispute under section 16-A (7) of the aforesaid Act to the Deputy Director of Education who alone was competent to determine such a dispute. " This view has been consistently followed by this Court in all subsequent cases including Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6681 of 1982 Committee of Management Arya Kanya Inter College Islamnagar Budaun v. Deputy Director of Education III Division, Bareilly, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10661 of 1983, Committee of Management Islamia Inter College, Muzaffarnagar v. District Inspector of Schools Muzaffarnagar, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5253 of 1984, Committee of Management P. D. Intermediate College, Gayaghat v, D. I. 0. S. Ballia, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1387 of 1986, Committee of Management Adarsh Inter College Acbhalda, District Etawah v. D. I. O. S. Etawah, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8508 of 1986, Committee of Management Rashtriya Shramik Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Firozabad, Agra v. District Inspector of Schools Agra and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17369 of 1987 The Committee of Management Dayanand Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Thana, Dariyaganj, Etah v. The District Inspector of Schools, Etah. 7. Thus, it is now well settled that once a dispute with respect to management of an institution arises before the District Inspector of Schools he has no option but to refer the matter to the Regional Deputy Director of Education for decision under section 16-A (7). He has no jurisdiction either to recognise any of the committee of management or pass interim orders regarding the management of the institution. The order dated 20-4-1988 of the District Inspector of Schools recognising the Committee of Management headed by respondent no. 2 as new committee of management is wholly without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 8. He has no jurisdiction either to recognise any of the committee of management or pass interim orders regarding the management of the institution. The order dated 20-4-1988 of the District Inspector of Schools recognising the Committee of Management headed by respondent no. 2 as new committee of management is wholly without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 8. In Jaswant Singh v. District Inspector of Schools (Supra), this Court feeling desirability of constituting some Tribunal for deciding such disputes of rival committees of management observed :- "Before parting with the case we find it necessary to point out that since neither the UP. Intermediate Education Act nor the High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, makes a provision for deciding a dispute raised by rival committees of management in regard to the validity of election in which they claim to have been elected and considerable time and expenditure is involved in getting an adjudication from a Civil Court consequent upon the District Inspector of Schools recognising one of the rival contenders as the duly constituted committee of management and further, since the experience of this Court has shown that the rate of litigation on this score is fairly high, it seems to be advisable that some tribunal may be constituted to decide such disputes as has been referred to above. " Section 16-A of U.P. Intermediate Education Act has although been amended, after the aforesaid decision of this Court, empowering the Regional Deputy Director of Education to decide the dispute with respect to management of such institutions but it has failed to achieve the desired result in view of the fact that under clause (7) neither the Regional Deputy Director of Education has been empowered to decide the validity of the election of the Committee of Management nor has any finality been attached to the orders passed by him under that provision. In our opinion, it is advisable to either constitute some tribunal for deciding such disputes or amend section 16-A empowering the Regional Deputy Director of Education to decide the validity of election of committee of management. 9. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 20-4-1988 of the District Inspector of Schools recognising the committee of management headed by respondent no. 9. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 20-4-1988 of the District Inspector of Schools recognising the committee of management headed by respondent no. 2 as new committee of management referred to in letter dated 27-4-1988 (Annexute-10) is quashed. The District Inspector of Schools is directed to refer the dispute to the Regional Deputy Director of Education for decision under section 16-A (7) within two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. The Regional Deputy Director of Education will decide the dispute between the parties within two months from the date of the receipt of the record. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.