ORDER N.L. Ganguly, J. - There are two writ petitions pending before this Court in respect of the same Institution and the same parties. The earlier one writ petition is W.P. No. 26028 of 1990, Committee of Management v. Dy. Director of Education, VIIth Region, Gorakhpur filed through Janak Nandan Lai as Manager of the Committee of Management. The relief claimed in this petition is that the judgment and order of the Dy. Director of Education, VIIth Region. Gorakhpur dated 26th July 1990 be quashed. The other reliefs were also added by the petitioner for restraining the respondents not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioners in the affairs of the Management of his Committee. The other writ petition is W.P. No. 9871 of 1991 Committee of Management. Sarvodye. Inter College, Deoria through Bisheshwar Singh claiming himself to be as Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution. This petition was filed on 9-4-91. The prayer in this writ petition is that the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 30-3-91 (Annexure 14 to the said petition) be quashed. Annexure 14 to the writ petition is the order of the District Inspector of Schools by which the operation of the order dated 26-7-90 which was stayed by the orders of the High Court dated 10-10-90 in W.P. No. 20929/90. In connection with the said stay order, after obtaining the legal advice from the Cheif Standing Counsel of the High Court, the D.I.O.S. directed that the signatures of Janak Nandan Lai which was attested by the D. I.O.S. may be permitted to function and operate the accounts of the Institution till further orders of the High Court. This order of the D.I.O.S. was challenged by the petitioner of the W.P. No. 9871 of 1991. This court was pleased to grant time to the learned counsel for t he respondents for filing counter-affidavit and directed that the petition be listed for final disposal on 15-4-91. No interim order was passed in this writ petition. Since both the writ petitions are of the same Institution and the controversy is for the dispute of Managing Committee and operation of the accounts of the Institutions, I propose to decide both the petitions by the common judgment. Both the parties have filed counter and rejoinder affidavits. No interim order was passed in this writ petition. Since both the writ petitions are of the same Institution and the controversy is for the dispute of Managing Committee and operation of the accounts of the Institutions, I propose to decide both the petitions by the common judgment. Both the parties have filed counter and rejoinder affidavits. The petitions are ready for hearing and with the consent of the parties, the petitions have been decided finally today. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. For appreciating the facts and circumstances of the present controversy, little facts would be necessary for correct appreciation of the controversy in the petitions. Admittedly, the previous election for the Committee of Management was held in the year 1986 and the next election was due on 10-9-1988. The election of the Committee of Management was held on 24-9-89 which was conducted at the instance of Bisheshwar Singh, the respondent No. 3 of the W.P. No. 26028/90, referred hereinafter as the 1st writ petitioner'. It was stated that the signatures of 'Janak Nandan Lal' was attested by the D. I.O.S. on 17-10-89 and papers were sent to the D.I.O.S. for attestation and approval on 26-9-89. Another writ petition had been filed being W.P. No. 20850/89 by Bisheshwar Singh before this Court by which the attestation of the signature dated 26-9-89 was challenged by him. At the time of filing of the said writ petition, interim order dated 10-11-89 was passed, by which the High Court was pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 26-9-89 attesting the signature of 'Janak Nandan t Since the operation of the order dated ,-9-89 was stayed by the Hon'ble High Court, the D.I.O.S. started operating the account himself. The petitioner of first writ petition challenged the action of the D.I.O.S. operating the account and usurping the function of the Committee of Management by W.P. No. 7140 of 1990. The High Court was pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 4-12-89, so far usurping the powers of the Committee of Management, by the D.I.O.S. by which he has started operating the account of the Institution, as stated usurping the powers of the Committee of Management. The writ petition No. 20854 of 1989 and 7140/90. Both were decided by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 14-5-90 Annexure 4 to the first writ petition. The writ petition No. 20854 of 1989 and 7140/90. Both were decided by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 14-5-90 Annexure 4 to the first writ petition. By the order of the Division Bench dated 14~-90, this court was pleased to direct the Dy. Director of Education to decide the dispute if raised before him within 15 days from he date of the judgment i.e., 14-5-90, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order before him. 4. After the judgment of the High Court, both the parties raised the dispute within the time directed by the High Court which was referred to the Dy. Director of Education and the Dy. Director of Education vide judgment and order dated 26-7-90 decided the reference made to him in pursuance of the judgment of the High Court. The judgment and order dated 26-7-90 of the Dy. Director of Education is impugned by the present writ petition. The Dy. Director of Education by the judgment impugned decided the case and directed that the D.I.O.S. Deoria shall get the elections of the Committee of Management conducted within a period of two months in accordance with the approved Scheme of Administration. He shall examine the list of members of the General Body and proceed to hold the election within the said period. During the period, he shall function and manage the general affairs of the Institution, and disbursement of payment etc. to the teachers and employees of the Institution. The learned counsel for the parties placed the entire judgment of the Dy. Director of Education. A perusal of the judgment shows that he adverted himself to decide the validity of the election held in respect to the Institution in question. The ultimate finding that he recorded was that the election held on 24-9-89 were not in accordance with the rules, regulations provided in the elections, but (sic) he observed since the rules and regulations for holding the elections were not valid, the result of the Election cannot be accepted. Thus, he finally arrived at a conclusion that fresh elections he held within two months from the date of his order and the direction to the said effect was given to the D.I.O.S. to get the election 'conducted'. 5. Thus, he finally arrived at a conclusion that fresh elections he held within two months from the date of his order and the direction to the said effect was given to the D.I.O.S. to get the election 'conducted'. 5. The provisions of S. 16A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 are quoted as under : "16-A(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 directs 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." 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment and order of the Dy. Director of Education are patently illegal and are not inconformity with the provision of S. 16A(7). He urged that in the entire order, the Dy. Director of Education has not considered this aspect that which of the rival Committee of Management is in actual effective control over the affairs of the Management of the Institution. The parties of the reference are to adjudicate the question which of the contesting rival Committee of Management is in actual and effective control of the Management of the Institution. If the .main question which is to be decided is not decided by the Dy. Director of Education, the order cannot be sustained. We cited a Division Bench case of this Hon'ble Court reported in 1984 U.P. Local Bodies & Educational cases page 910 (sic) : 1985 All LJ 555, Sudhir Kumar Pathka, Manager, Committee of Management, Sri Pyare Lal Genda Lal Intermediate College, Eke, Distt. Mainpuri v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra which is quoted as under (at pp. 556-57 of All LJ) : "The above provision of law requires the Regional Deputy Director of Education to hold enquiry and to determine as to which of the rival committee should be recognised for the purpose of running the management of the institution. That decision is not final, it is subject to the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. 556-57 of All LJ) : "The above provision of law requires the Regional Deputy Director of Education to hold enquiry and to determine as to which of the rival committee should be recognised for the purpose of running the management of the institution. That decision is not final, it is subject to the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. The Regional Deputy Director is required to hold enquiry and to decide who is fit to be in actual control of the affairs of the institution and in doing that he is required to follow the guidelines contained in the Explanation. The explanation provides that in determining that question the Regional Deputy Director shall have regard as to who had control over the funds of the institution and affairs of the institution and receipt of the income of the property and also the scheme of administration approved under S. 16A. Sub-sec. (7) of S. 16A does not confer power on the Regional Deputy Director to act like an Election Tribunal to investigate and decide the validity of the election of a office bearer, in steed it merely confers power on him to ensure smooth running of the institution. The legislative intent is clear that a person who is in actual control of the affairs of the institution including the control over the funds of the institution, properties of the institution and the scheme of administration should be allowed to continue as such till a court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise. There may be cases where the election of office bearers is seriously disputed, as is the case in the instant petition, but the Regional Deputy Director has no jurisdiction to enter into the validity of the elections. It is in the light of these observations that the validity of the impugned order is to be considered." 7. He also cited another case law reported in same 1985 UPLBEC 241 : 1985 All LJ 1005, Committee of Management Subhash Uchchattar Madyamik Vidayalaya Rajapur, Meerut v. Dy. Director of Education, Meerut Region, Meerut. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner of the first writ petition is that when the Dy. Director of Education exercises powers under S. 16A(7), he is a required to decide the main question as to which of the rival Committee of Management is in actual and effective control of the affairs of the Institution. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner of the first writ petition is that when the Dy. Director of Education exercises powers under S. 16A(7), he is a required to decide the main question as to which of the rival Committee of Management is in actual and effective control of the affairs of the Institution. However, it is not barred if incidental question about the correctness or otherwise of the election said to have been held may be gone into by the Dy. Director of Education. In the present case, the Dy. Director of Education has not incidentally gone into the question about the validity of the committee of the management but his main thrust was to decide the validity of the election of the Committee of Management which in my opinion is not in the domaine of the Educational Authorities, which is for the civil court to adjudicate. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents cited 1988 UPLBEC 402 : 1988 All LJ 1023, Committee of Management, Bhakt Vatsal Intermediate College, Bichhwa, Mainpuri v. Regional Dy. Director of Education, Agra. This decision has been cited by the learned counsel for the respondents to show that the validity of the constitution of the Committee of Management, its actual effective control in the affairs of the Management of the Committee of inextricably mixed question with the validity of the election. The Dy. Director of Education has jurisdiction to examine the validity of the election also. There is no controversy about this submission. The validity of the election may be gone into but the main thrust and parties of the reference is to adjudicate the effective control over the affairs of the Management of the Institution, is to be adjudicated (sic). As already observed, the judgment of the Dy. Director of Education has not adverted to the main question as required under S. 16A(7) of the Act and he had proceeded to decide the question of validity of the election itself which was not in his domain. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the facts and law, stated above, the judgment and order of the Regional Dy. Director of Education, Gorakhpur dated 26-7-90 cannot be allowed to stand. It is hereby quashed. 10. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the facts and law, stated above, the judgment and order of the Regional Dy. Director of Education, Gorakhpur dated 26-7-90 cannot be allowed to stand. It is hereby quashed. 10. Since there is an order of the Court, Annexure 4 to the writ petition, by which the High Court had specifically directed that the matter be decided under S. 16A(7) by the Dy. Director of Education, I direct that the Dy. Director of Education shall decide the reference pending before him at the instance of both the parties in accordance with law and as per directions and observations made in this judgment within a period of two months from the date of filing a certified copy of this judgment. 11. Writ petition No. 9871 of 1991 filed by the other Committed of Management through Bisheshwar Singh by which the order dated 30-3-91 passed by the District Inspector of Schools was sought to be quashed. Although counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties in this petition also, I do not propose to keep this petition pending as the first writ petition, referred above, to has already been allowed and the matter has been remanded before the Dy. Director of Education for deciding the reference under S. 16A(7) afresh, I consider that the interim order dated 10-10-90 passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 26028, of 1990 shall continue to remain in force till the Dy. Director of Education decides the representation as directed above. The Dy. Director of Education shall pass necessary and appropriate orders in favour of either of the parties in whose favour, he decides the representation that the operation of the account may be handed over to such successful. party, as he finds in his judgment that he would decide in the reference. 12. With these observations, W.P. No. 9871 of 1991 is disposed of W.P. No. 26028/1990, Committee of Management through Janak Nandan Lal as its Manager v. Dy. Director of Education is allowed. The order dated 26-7-90 passed by the Dy. Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur is quashed and the Dy. Director of Education shall decide the reference under S. 16A(7) of the Act, as directed above. 13. Director of Education is allowed. The order dated 26-7-90 passed by the Dy. Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur is quashed and the Dy. Director of Education shall decide the reference under S. 16A(7) of the Act, as directed above. 13. The W.P. No. 9871 of 1991, Committee of Management Sarvodaya Inter College, Deoria through Bisheshwar Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria is disposed of, with the above observations. 14. Parties to bear their own costs.