ORDER M.L. Bhat, J. - The facts as are revealed from the writ petition are briefly stated. A dispute had arisen in respect of the election of the managing committee of the institution in question held on 19-12-1982. The said dispute was referred to the Deputy Director of Education who by his order dated 19-4- 1984 recognised one Vijai Narain as Manager. The term of the committee of management was three years, which, according to the petitioner, would commence from 20-4-1984 to 19-4-1987. The new committee was to be elected on 20-4-1987 or one month thereafter. The election was to be conducted by the committee of management under the scheme of administration and the committee of management was to hold office till the new committee of management was elected. However, the scheme of administration of the institution was amended on 31-1-1985. In respect of the said election a civil suit was also filed which is said to have been dismissed. 2. It is stated that the President of the Committee of Management was removed on 7-2-1986 by the ?rd majority of the members of the general body who expressed no confidence in him and in his place the then Vice-President was appointed as President of the committee of management. This is reflected by Annexure 3 to the writ petition. It is stated that the managing committee' elected on 19-12-1982 could not be dissolved on 19-1-1986 or after the expiry of three years because under rules of the institution the out-going committee of management was to continue to function till the new committee was elected or assumed charge of the management. No vacuum could be allowed to prevail if the committee of management was to be removed immediately after the expiry of three years and one It was to remain in office till fresh election was conducted. The programme of election was notified by the then committee of management on 15-11-1985. A Returning Officer was also appointed. A writ petition, being writ petition No. 19670 of 1986 was filed by the then President, who was removed by vote of no confidence from the committee of management. The respondent No. 1 is said to have directed the respondent No. 2 on 19-4-1984 not to interfere with the proceedings of election of the committee of management which was going to be held under the rules of the institution. The respondent No. 1 is said to have directed the respondent No. 2 on 19-4-1984 not to interfere with the proceedings of election of the committee of management which was going to be held under the rules of the institution. The election is said to have been held on 5-5-1986 in which one Nagendra Sharma, who is writ petitioner, is said to have been elected as Manager and Sobhnath Tewari as president of the managing committee of the institution. Information of this election was sent to respondent No. 2 for the purpose of payment of salary to the staff of the institution. The respondent No. 4 is said to have set up a dispute in which he alleged that he was a representative of the rival managing committee. The petitioners committee has come into picture according to the petitioner on 5-5-1986. The rival managing committee is said to have never functioned. The petitioner's committee was functioning and managing the affairs of the institution and has been in possession and effective control of finances, assets and properties of the institution. 3. The officer of the respondent No. 2 is said to have tried to create hindrance in the election. A representation was made by the members of the committee of management of the institution functioning at that time for not appointing Prabandh Sanchalak authorised controller. In the representation it.was stated that let the election process be completed according to the schedule already published. the then Manager is also said to have made a representation dated 1-3-1986 to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for permission to hold election of the committee of management. The opposite party No. I is said to have directed opposite party No. 2 not to interfere with the election of the committee to be held according to the schedule published in Hindi daily `Aaj'. The opposite party No. 2 is said to have accepted the result of the election held on 5-5-1986 in respect of the committee of management. The signatures of the manager of the petitioner's committee were also attested on 7-5-1986. The charge of the managing committee was handed over to the petitioner's committee on 7-5-1986. Thereafter salaries of the teachers were paid for two months under the joint signatures of Nagendra Sharma Manager and the Accounts Officer. The signatures of the manager of the petitioner's committee were also attested on 7-5-1986. The charge of the managing committee was handed over to the petitioner's committee on 7-5-1986. Thereafter salaries of the teachers were paid for two months under the joint signatures of Nagendra Sharma Manager and the Accounts Officer. The petitioner has tried to set up a case to prove that he was in effective control of the finances and affairs of the committee of management. 4. The respondent No. 4 is said to have filed writ petition No. 8045 of 1986 through one Chandresh Singh for quashing the order whereby the signatures of the petitioner were attested. The order dated 7-5-1986 was stayed. Another interim order was passed on 4-7-1987 by the High Court after filing of a detailed counter-affidavit and stay vacation application to the effect that the management of the institution shall continue to be run by the office bearers as on June 17. 1986. The said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed and a liberty was given to file a representation under Section 16A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The respondent No. 4 did not file any writ petition. His application for impleadment was also dismissed on 27-10- 1987. 5. On 28-10-1986 a representation was filed by the respondent No. 4 under Section 16A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The petitioner filed a reply to the said representation. The petitioner's committee on 23-7-1987 also filed a representation before the respondent No. 1 asking him to reject the representation of the respondent No. 4 and granting recognition to the petitioner's committee on the basis of its effective control over the affairs of the institution. The petitioner is also said to have assisted the auditors in auditing the previous accounts of the institution which has remained unaudited. The respondent No. 1 is said to have passed an order dated 31-7-1987 appointing Prabandh Sanchalak of the institution and asking him to hold election thereafter. The scheme of administration, which was amended had no retrospective effect. therefore, the Prabandh Sanchalak could not be appointed. The finding that the previous managing committee which conducted election had become dead and defunct on 18-1-1986 is said to be arbitrary, mala fide and without jurisdiction. The scheme of administration, which was amended had no retrospective effect. therefore, the Prabandh Sanchalak could not be appointed. The finding that the previous managing committee which conducted election had become dead and defunct on 18-1-1986 is said to be arbitrary, mala fide and without jurisdiction. The process of election commenced under the orders of the opposite party No. I and election was duly held by the previous committee of management. The membership fee was only Rs. 100/- which was arbitrarily enhanced to Rs. 500/- by the opposite party No. I without having any jurisdiction in this regard. The opposite party No. 1 could not exercise any jurisdiction over the society under the Societies Registration Act. The valid election of 5-5-86 could not be set aside by the respondent No. 1. The impugned order is said to be misconceived and arbitrary. The petitioner's committee has been in effective control of the management. There is no provision in the scheme of administration for appointment of Prabandh Sanchalak. A validly elected committee was functioning. The finding about the previous managing committee having become defunct on 18-1-1986 is without jurisdiction. arbitrary and mala fide. The increase in the membership fee is also said to be arbitrary. The respondent No. 1 cannot set aside the election. The election of the petitioner's committee can be challenged only by filing a civil suit by a rival committee. 6. On the aforesaid grounds it is prayed that the order dated 31-7-1987, contained in Annexure XXVII to the writ petition, be set aside, by a writ of mandamus the respondents be directed not to act upon or enforce the impugned order and the respondents be prohibited from interfering with the functioning of the petitioner's committee. 7. In the counter affidavit the respondent's case is that the election held on 19-12-1982 was valid but the managing committee elected in pursuance of the said election could not remain in office beyond three years and one month. According to the respondents the managing committee elected on 19-12-1982 did not exist after three years and one month after the said date. It is contended that the managing committee elected in the said election became defunct on 18-1-1986. Therefore, the election conducted by the said managing committee on 5-5-1986 was invalid and without jurisdiction. According to the respondents the managing committee elected on 19-12-1982 did not exist after three years and one month after the said date. It is contended that the managing committee elected in the said election became defunct on 18-1-1986. Therefore, the election conducted by the said managing committee on 5-5-1986 was invalid and without jurisdiction. The petitioner could not therefore claim to be a managing committee constituted in an election which could not be held by the said managing committee. The election could be held by the authorised controller. It is also contended that the managing committee of respondent No. 4 was also election on 5-5-1986. That managing committee was valid. The matter was referred to the Deputy Director of Education because two rival committees were in existence. The Deputy Director of Education had the authority under Section 16A(7) to consider the validity of the election which was held on 5-5-1986 and also be appoint a Prabandh Sanchalak for initiating election process and for conducting the election for the managing committee of the institution. The petitioner's claim set out in the writ petition is denied and the impugned order is said to be valid and justified. A long list of annexures is appended to the writ petition and to the counter affidavit and the rival contenders have tried to justify their stand and placed their own construction on the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act. The respondents have also denied that the petitioner was ever in effective control of the institution. The effective control, which is to be determined under the provisions of Section 16A(7) of the Act, is to be determine don: the relevant date which in the present case is 5-5-1986 and prior to that. 8. Further supplementary affidavits and pleadings have been filed. It is contended that the scheme of administration was amended with effect from 31-1-1985. Under the amended scheme election of the committee of management was to be held immediately after the expiry of three years and one month and if the same was not done, Prabandh Sanchalak was to be appointed, who would conduct election of the committee of management. Under the unamended scheme which was in force when election on 19-12-1982 was held, it was provided that the committee of management shall remain in office for three years or till the election for constituting a new managing committee was held. Under the unamended scheme which was in force when election on 19-12-1982 was held, it was provided that the committee of management shall remain in office for three years or till the election for constituting a new managing committee was held. The respondents submit that the period for continuation of the old managing committee beyond three years and one month was against the provisions of law, therefore, it would not operate in respect of an election which was to be conducted after the amendment i.e. after 31-1-1985. The petitioner, however, has contended that the amended provisions would not apply to the term of managing committee which was constituted in 1982 and which had a right to exist till new election was conducted. The amended provisions would apply prospectively in respect of those committees which were constituted after 31st January, 1985 and not in respect of those managing committees which were in existence on the date of coming into force of the amended scheme. 9. Learend counsel for the parties submitted detailed arguments. They referred to various annexures and pleadings which they have submitted in support of their contentions. Some authorities also were cited at the Bar. 10. I have considered the arguments and given though ful considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel for e..parties and examined the record of the writ petition. 11. There is no dispute with regard to the election held for the managing committee on 19-12-1982. That election was held under the provisions of old scheme which permitted the managing committee to remain in office till fresh election was held and bar of the three years and one month for remaining in office for the elected managing committee was not there. It was not imperative under the old scheme to appoint a Prabandh Sanchalak after the expiry of three years and one month from the date of election of the managing committee, if no election was held within that period. 12. The facts which emerge from the present writ petition are that within three years from the date of expiry of the term of the managing committee which had come into office on 19-12-1982 election process were initiated on 15-11-1985. The election was to he completed by 15-1-1986. 12. The facts which emerge from the present writ petition are that within three years from the date of expiry of the term of the managing committee which had come into office on 19-12-1982 election process were initiated on 15-11-1985. The election was to he completed by 15-1-1986. In the meantime an order was received from the District Inspector of Schools on 27-12-1985 virtually staying the process of election and asking the then managing committee to proceed in accordance with the amended scheme in the matter of conduct of election. The managing committee had proceeded in the matter in accordance with the old scheme, therefore, the purport of the communication dated 27-12-1986 was not to proceed with the process of election. As a result of this no election could he conducted by the managing committee on the due date i.e. before the expiry of the terms of its office. Thereupon the Deputy Director was approached. He is said to have looked into the matter and directed by his order dated 19-4-1986 to complete the election process which were started in November 1985. The election was conducted on 5-5-1986 and the signatures of the Manager of the Managing Committee were attested on 7-5-1986. On this point it is relevant to mention that a writ petition was filed in the High Court against the attestation of signatures of the Manager of the petitioner's committee which was dismissed as the respondent wanted to file a representation before the Deputy Director under Section 16A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act. 13. With regard to the election of 19-12-1982 of the then committee of management of dispute was raised by the rival committee which was decided by the Deputy Director and the said managing committee was granted recognition on 20-4-1984. The said managing committee would, therefore, be deemed to have cone into existence either on 20-4-1984 or 19-12-1982. This question will be taken up for discussion at a little later. 14. The dispute regarding election of 5-5-1986 was considered by the Deputy Director on a representation filed by the respondent No. 4. The Deputy Director held the election of 5.5-1986 invalid and appointed authorised controller for a fixed term with a direction to him to hold the election of the managing committee. The petitioner has submitted that the Deputy Director has not discharged his obligations in accordance with Section 16A(7) of the Act. The Deputy Director held the election of 5.5-1986 invalid and appointed authorised controller for a fixed term with a direction to him to hold the election of the managing committee. The petitioner has submitted that the Deputy Director has not discharged his obligations in accordance with Section 16A(7) of the Act. Section 16A(7) reads as under : "Section 16A(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 affair 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." It is submitted that on the true construction of Section 16A(7) of the Act the Deputy Director of Education has to give a finding upon such enquiry as is deemed fit by him in respect of the fact as to which is the validly constituted committee of management which can be recognised as such, until a Court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise. In arriving at his decision the Deputy Director of Education is enjoined to give reasonable opportunity to the rival claimant to make a representation in writing. In determining as to who is in actual control of the affairs of the institution the Deputy Director is to have regard to the control over the funds of the institution and over the administration and the receipt of income from the properties of the institution, the Scheme of Administration approved under sub-section (5) and other relevant circumstances. 15. In determining as to who is in actual control of the affairs of the institution the Deputy Director is to have regard to the control over the funds of the institution and over the administration and the receipt of income from the properties of the institution, the Scheme of Administration approved under sub-section (5) and other relevant circumstances. 15. It is borne out from the examination of the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Education that he has not at all given a finding as to which of the rival committees on the relevant date was in effective control of the institution. Giving of finding on this issue is a condition precedent for according the recognition to one of these managing committee. 16. The managing committee represented by the respondent No. 4 also had claimed that he represented the managing committee, the election whereof was held on 5-5-1986. Strangely enough the respondent No. 4 wanted the Deputy Director of Education to give recognition to the election of his committee which he claimed to have taken place on 5-5-1986 and in the same breath pleaded that no election could be held on that date because the term of the managing committee had expired. The respondent No. 4 has approbate and reprobated in the same breath. The Deputy Director of Education gave a finding that the election alleged to have taken place on 5-5-1986 was invalid and Prabandh Sanchalak was appointed by him. He, therefore, omitted to do what was required to be done by him under law. The questions for consideration are whether the old managing committee constituted on 19-12-1982 which was recognised on 20-4-1984 could conduct the election on 5-5-1986 and whether the order of the Deputy Director appointing Prabandh Sanchalak without complying with the provisions of Section 16A(7) of the Act is valid. The committee of management constituted on 19-12-1982 was recognised on 20-4-1984. There is ample proof that the said committee had taken the management of the institution on 19-12-1982 though it got recognition on 20-4-1984. Its term would not start from 20-4-1984 as is contended, but will commence from the date of its taking over the affairs of the institution. Therefore, the managing committee constituted on 19-12-1982 could not be said to have taken over management on 20-4-1984 as was sought to he canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Its term would not start from 20-4-1984 as is contended, but will commence from the date of its taking over the affairs of the institution. Therefore, the managing committee constituted on 19-12-1982 could not be said to have taken over management on 20-4-1984 as was sought to he canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner its term would expire on 20 f 4-1987 and thereafter it can remain in office for one month more. The true position is that it has come into being on 19-12-1982 because its functioning was not stalled. Only there was delay in its recognition. The submission that the committee elected on 19-12-1982 would last up to 20-4-1987 is, therefore, without merit. 17. In order to determine the term of the committee of management constituted on 19712-1982 it is necessary to say something about the amendment in the scheme of administration. The scheme of administration had undergone a change with effect from 31-1-1985 and from that date it was provided that the term of the managing committee will be three years and one month and if the election is not held within that period a Prabandh Sanchalak can be appointed to hold election of the committee of managment. Under the unamended scheme this proviso was not there. The managing committee of 1982 had come into being under the old scheme. Therefore, it had the right to remain in office till election for constituting the new committee of management was held. The amendment effected on 31-1-1985 would not detract the authority of the managing committee of 1982 to conduct the election of the new managing committee after the expiry of its term. The old scheme did not envisage appointment of Prabandh Sanchalak immediately at the expiry of three years and one month. The authority which was given to the managing committee under the unamended scheme, therefore, would not be taken away by the amendment which was effected on 31-1-1985. The said provision was prospective and not retrospective. It would apply to such managing committee which had come into office after 3l-1-1985 and would not be made applicable retrospectively to the managing committee constituted on 19-12-1982. That being so, the managing committee constituted in 1982 cannot be deprived of its authority given to it in respect of conduct of election under the unamended scheme. 18. It would apply to such managing committee which had come into office after 3l-1-1985 and would not be made applicable retrospectively to the managing committee constituted on 19-12-1982. That being so, the managing committee constituted in 1982 cannot be deprived of its authority given to it in respect of conduct of election under the unamended scheme. 18. Assuming, and not deciding, that the amendment of the scheme of administration was applicable to the petitioner's managing committee, it would not make any difference on the rights of the petitioners managing committee which came into being on 5-5-1986. The term of the old managing committee would expire on 19-12-1985. It could remain in office for one month thereafter. It would cease to be operative from 18-1-1986 onwards. It initiated election process on 15-11-1985 and the election was to take place on 15-1-1986 i.e. before the expiry of a period of three years and one month. The District- Inspector of Schools stopped the process of election by his communication dated 27-12-1985. The election process could not be completed on 15-1-1986 because the District Inspector of School's communication. When the matter was referred to the Deputy Director of Education he after looking into the matter lifted the embargo on 19-4-1986 placed on the conduct of the election by the District Inspector of Schools and directed the election to be conducted which was conducted on 5-5-1986. in the said election the petitioner's committee came into being and the respondent No. 4 set up a rival managing committee and contended that they were also elected on the same date. The election was postponed and thereafter allowed to be held by the respondents. No fault can be attributed to the petitioner for not holding the election before the expiry of three years and one month. In fact they had initiated the process and fixed the schedule for conduct of the election. That being so it cannot be said that the period between 15-1-1986 and the actual date of election i.e. 5-5-1986 is unaccounted for. The said period is accounted for. The election is stopped, then it is permitted to be held. Therefore the amendment in the scheme of administration has no relevance so far the conduct of election dated 5-5-1986 is concerned. 19. The signatures of the manager are attested on 7-5-1986. The writ petition is filed in the High Court against this order, which is dismissed. The election is stopped, then it is permitted to be held. Therefore the amendment in the scheme of administration has no relevance so far the conduct of election dated 5-5-1986 is concerned. 19. The signatures of the manager are attested on 7-5-1986. The writ petition is filed in the High Court against this order, which is dismissed. A representation is made to the Director of Education who oversteps his jurisdiction and passes an order which cannot be supported under Section 16A(7) of the Act. 20. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that though the Deputy Director of Education has not given a finding as to which of the rival claimants was in effective control on the relevant date but his order of appointment of authorised controller secures the ends of justice and he has directed him to conduct the election which will satisfy the demands of the petitioner also. It is stated that the validity or otherwise of the election can be considered under Section 16A(7) of the Act by the Deputy Director of Education while giving his findings. If he is to decide which of the rival committees is in effective, control he has to give a finding of the election also. 21. The submission of Mr. Ashok Bhushan that the Deputy Director of Education can consider the validity of the election or otherwise appears to be correct but could the Deputy Director of Education go beyond that as he has gone in the present case Mr. Ashok Bhushan submitted that technically he may not he correct in appointing the authorised controller but his order was equitable and just. Reference is made to the case of Committee of Management of Kishan Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya v. Deputy Director of Education, Meerut, reported in 1986 All LJ 88 which says that the order of appointment of the authorised controller was valid where new scheme of administration for an institution was framed providing that the committee of management would cease to exist on expiry of certain term and the Deputy Director would appoint an administrator for non-election of new committee within prescribed period for holding election for constituting new committee of management. In the case of Committee of Management of Subhash Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Rajapura (Mowana) Meerut v. Deputy Director of Education, Meerut, reported in 1985 UPLBEC 241 : 1985 All CJ 1005, it was held that the Deputy Director of Education cannot go into the disputed question of validity of election of committee of management under Section 16A(7), except incipiently with a view to decide the question of effective control of the rival claimants over the affairs of the management of the institution. In the case of Sankatha Prasad Srivastava v. Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur, reported in 1985 UPLBEC 751 : 1985 All LJ 1289 it was held that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education in exercise of powers, vested in him without considering the question of effective control and holding of election would be bad. In the case of Maharshi Sukhdeo Vidyalaya Shukartal v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, 1st Region (D.D.R.), Meerut, reported in 1985 All LJ 471 the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director and scope of his exercise was considered. It was held that the Deputy Director has no jurisdiction to decide the validity of election of rival managing committee. In the case of Bajaj Shiksha Parishad v. Deputy Director of Education, reported in 1988 UPLBEC 267 the Supreme Court has held that the direction of the Deputy Director under Section 16A(7) of the Act to hold election before the expiry of the term of the elected committee of management, which was in actual control of the affairs of the college was held to be illegal and without jurisdiction. The term of the committee of management in actual control of the institution cannot be curtailed. However, in the case of Committee of Management, Bhakt Vishal Inter College, Bichwa District Mainpuri v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra, reported in 1988 UPLBEC 402 : 1988 All LJ 1023 it was held that where there is a dispute between the two rival groups about the management of an institution, the issue of actual control is inextricably mixed up with the validity of election. The Deputy Director has jurisdiction to examine the validity of election also. The Deputy Director has jurisdiction to examine the validity of election also. In the case of Salek Chand Chauhan v. State of U.P., reported in 1988 UPLBEC 585 : 1988 All LJ 687 it was held that clause 8 of the Scheme of administration fixes a certain term for the members of the committee of management which is three years and provides that they may continue in office for only one more month after expiry of their term of three years and thereafter they cease to hold office. The Deputy Director was to appoint Pradhan Sanchalak. who was to take over the management and hold election. Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration was held to have no effect on clause 9(1) of the Scheme of Administration which provided that the manager and president can jointly convene a meeting of the general body to hold election and the notice for meeting can be jointly signed by both of them. The District Inspector of Schools in such circumstances was held to be entitled to issue directions to hold election in accordance with clause 9 of the Scheme. In the case of Committee of Management of Hindu Inter College, Kosi Kalan v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra, reported in 1988 UPLBEC 732 : 1988 All LJ 831, the Court was considering the import of Section 16A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act, Section 25(3) of the Societies Registration Act and Section 115 of the Evidence Act. The dispute relating to between the two rival groups, each group claiming to have been elected in accordance with the scheme of administration was before the Deputy Director. The Director of Education gave recognition to one of those groups. He was held to have jurisdiction to do so and his judgment was subject to the decision of a civil suit which could be filed by the aggrieved party. In the case of Management Committee of the Arya Kanya Inter College, Islamnagar, Budaun v. Deputy Director of Education IIIrd Division, Bareilly, reported in 1983 Education Cases 244, a Division Bench of this Court was considering Section 16A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act. The dispute with regard to the validity of two elections held for management of rival committee which was referred to the Deputy Director of Education could be decided by him and such a dispute was within the ambit of his jurisdiction. 22. The dispute with regard to the validity of two elections held for management of rival committee which was referred to the Deputy Director of Education could be decided by him and such a dispute was within the ambit of his jurisdiction. 22. There is no power vested in the Deputy Director of Education to appoint authorised controller under Section 16A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act. The Deputy Director of Education cannot grant recognition to one of the rival committees without considering the question of which of the rival committees was in effective control of the institution on the relevant date. The Deputy Director has failed to decide that question in the present case. He could decide as to which of the rival committees was validly elected. He could not annul the elections of both the rival committees. The power to annul the election of the two rival committees is not given to the Deputy Director of Education by the provisions of Section 16A(7) of the Act. He could, of course, recognise one of the committees after having considered the question of effective control over the management. He was not considering an election petition which would empower him to annul the election in toto. The course adopted by the Deputy Director is not legal and he has overstepped his jurisdiction and exercised powers which were not vested in him. While deciding the question of recognition he had, of course, the power to consider the validity of election incidently. He cannot undo an election completely and then appoint an authorised controller under Section 16A(7). It was feebly argued that he was considering the scheme of administration which permitted him to appoint authorised controller. The dispute was referred to him under Section 16A(7) of the Act, which did not permit him to appoint the authorised controller. 23. The impugned order, contained in Annexure XXVII to the writ petition, is therefore without jurisdiction, illegal and violative of Section 16A(7) of the Act. The said order cannot be sustained and is to be quashed. 24. By the order dated 31-7-1987 the Deputy Director of Education has cut short the term of the committee of management by some months. The committee of management could remain in office for three years and one month under the amended scheme also. Its term would end on 4-6-1989. The said order cannot be sustained and is to be quashed. 24. By the order dated 31-7-1987 the Deputy Director of Education has cut short the term of the committee of management by some months. The committee of management could remain in office for three years and one month under the amended scheme also. Its term would end on 4-6-1989. If within that period no election was held the Deputy Director was empowered to appoint authorised controller to take over the management and to hold election, but the Deputy Director without jurisdiction appointed the authorised controller on 31-7-1987 when the term of the committee of management had not expired. By the impugned order the term of the committee of management of the petitioner is reduced in violation of law and against the provisions of the scheme of administration. There has been reduction of about 23 months in the term of the petitioner's managing committee and the reduction is effected by the impugned order which is held to be without jurisdiction and violative of law. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of 23 months from the date the authorised controller hands over charge to the petitioner. 25. The writ petition filed by the respondent No.4 against the order of attestation of signatures was dismissed as not pressed, therefore, the attestation of the signatures of the manager of the petitioner's managing committee has become final. That would mean that the election dated 5-5-1986 set up by the petitioner has acquired validity, and the petitioner is entitled to manage the affairs of the committee of management for three years and one month. Its term has been cut short by 23 months, credit whereof is to be given to the petitioner because he cannot be deprived of full terms on the basis of an order which is without jurisdiction. 26. Mr. Ashok Bhushan argued that assuming that the petitioner was elected in the election held on 5-5-1986, his term would expire on 4-5-1989 and he can get only one month thereafter. That would allow him to remain in office up to 4-6-1989. Now the term of the committee of management of the petitioner has already expired, therefore, the authorised controller may be directed to hold election immediately so that new committee of management is elected. 27. That would allow him to remain in office up to 4-6-1989. Now the term of the committee of management of the petitioner has already expired, therefore, the authorised controller may be directed to hold election immediately so that new committee of management is elected. 27. This argument on the face of it appears to be attractive but when a deep thought is given to the submission it would appear that Mr. Ashok Bhushan wants the order dated 31-7-1987 to be construed as a valid order, which has not affected the right of the petitioner to management the affairs of the committee of management. He submitted that once the term has started, it would not stop even if by some events which had intervened the term was cut short. Therefore, the order of the Deputy Director of Education would not have the effect of reducing the period, of the petitioner's managing committee. I am not inclined to agree with Mr. Ashok Bhushan because on the basis of the impugned order, which is without jurisdiction the petitioner will not be allowed to lose about 23 months of his term. the term of the petitioner's managing committee was reduced for no fault of his and on the basis of an order, which is held to be bad. Therefore the commencement of term of a managing committee cannot be compared to the commencement of limitation for seeking a remedy on a court of law. If the limitation for pursuing a remedy starts it does not get suspended by any event. This principle cannot be applied to the period of term for which the petitioner's committee has to exercise powers of management over the affairs of the institution. The submission is, therefore, rejected. 28. Viewed from any angle the order dated 31-7-1987 cannot be sustained. The said order for the reasons given in this judgment is hereby quashed as being without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of law. It is held that the petitioner's managing committee is entitled to manage the affairs of the institution for full term of three years and one month out of which about 23 months have been reduced by the invalid impugned order. Therefore, the petitioner is to be given benefit for the remaining period of about 23 months to be calculated by the Deputy Director of Education in exact terms. Therefore, the petitioner is to be given benefit for the remaining period of about 23 months to be calculated by the Deputy Director of Education in exact terms. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to remain in charge of the management of the institution for about 23 months or so from the date of obtaining charge of the management from the authorised controller. The authorised controller is commanded to handover the charge of the management to the petitioner's committee within one week from the date of presentation or a certified copy of this order before him. The petitioner has the authority to conduct the election in accordance with the scheme of administration amended on 31-1-1985. after the expiry of term of his remaining period. If he fails to do so, the Deputy Director of Education will be within his right to handover the management to the authorised controller with the direction that the said authorised controller will hold the election within three months and hand over the management of the institution to the duly elected committee of management. 29. With the observations made in this judgment the writ petition is allowed but there will be no order as to costs.