JUDGMENT N.L. Ganguly, J. - Raj Narain Sing files this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming himself to be the Manager of the Committee of Management of Panchsheel Inter College, Fatehganj, Jaunpur. He prayed for quashing of the order of the District Inspector of Schools, by which he attested and recognised the signature of Shri Narendra Bahadur Singh, wrongly spelled in the writ petition array of the party as 'Nagendra Bahadur Singh' as Manager of Committee of Management of Panchsheel Inter College, Fatehganj, Jaunpur. The allegation of the petitioner is that election was held for the member of the managing committee and its office bearers on 25-9-1989. Programme for the conduct of election was published in newspaper 'Tarun Mitra' dated 13th September, 1989, a photocopy of which is annexed to the counter affidavit of the contesting respondent as Annexure-C-A. 2(c). the petitioner stated that immediately after the election 26-9-1989. He submitted the paper and election result etc. to the District Inspector of School on the same day personally but the District Inspector of Schools asked to submitted it to the clerk concerned in his office. He pleased that he accordingly submitted the paper to the clerk concerned at the officer of the District Inspector of School. A receipt was us also obtained from the clerk concerned 26-9-1989. Photocopy of the said receipt has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure SRA-1 to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit and a true copy of the same is also annexed with writ petition as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that after submission of all the papers to the District Inspector of Schools' Office, he continued visiting him and asking him repeatedly about the election for months lastly on 17.10.1989, he submitted an application before the District Inspector of Schools, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, in which he stated that the papers concerning the election were submitted at his office on 26-9-1989 and nothing has been done till date. He sought for the information from the District Inspector of Schools as to what action he ha taken after receiving the said paper. He sought for the information from the District Inspector of Schools as to what action he ha taken after receiving the said paper. The petitioner has annexed a letter dated 10-11-1989 sent to him by the District Inspector of Schools, in which the District Inspector of Schools informed the petitioner that he came to know by letter dated 17-10-1989 that election was held on 26-9-1989 and all papers concerning he said election were received at his office. The District Inspector of Schools asked he petitioner to furnish all papers; list of General Body and copy of Amendment Scheme of Administration and all papers concerning the election for his perusal. This letter of District Inspector of Schools was replied by the petitioner by another letter dated 29-11-1989 and he submitted the requisite papers as were called by the District Inspector of Schools by letter dated 27-7-1989 had already communicated to the Committee of Management and its Manager namely; Narendra Bahdur Singh that he was approved and recognised as Manager of the Committee of Management and his order dated 27-9-1989 he filed the present writ petition on 2-1-1990, which was admitted on 5-1-1980. 2. The contesting respondent No. 2 Narendra Bahadur Singh has filed his counter affidavit and the District Inspector of Schools has also filed a counter affidavit rejoinders to the said counters have been filed. This petition is ready for final hearing. It was previously heard but for want of counter affidavit on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools, the judgment could not be delivered at that time. Now the matter is being heard as a fresh and he petition is being decided finally with the consent of the parties. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that his client submitted the papers relating to the election and it was his client, who was elected on 26-9-1989. The papers were received at the office of the District Inspector of Schools, still the District Inspector of Schools by order dated 27-7-1989. approved and attested the signature of Sri Narendra Bahadur Singh alleged to have been elected in election held on 25-9-1989. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the letter by which, the District Inspector of Schools had issued notice to the clerk concerned for showing cause as to why he had not put up the papers concerning the petitioner's election on 26-9-1989. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the letter by which, the District Inspector of Schools had issued notice to the clerk concerned for showing cause as to why he had not put up the papers concerning the petitioner's election on 26-9-1989. The reply was given by the clerk concerned and he categorically denied to have received the papers of any election from the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner wanted this court to to examine the disputed signature and find out that the signature, which was made on the receipt given to the petitioner was the same person, who had submitted the order that reply. I am afraid that this court cannot assume function of Handwriting Expert in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India now the important facts and controversy of the case is that in the last section of the Committee of the Management, which was held in 1986, the respondent Narendra Bahadur Singh was duly elected as Manager of the Committee of the Management. He was approved and recognise also as the Manager by the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner has raised a dispute and has claimed himself to be a Manager elected in the election. He was successful in getting his dispute referred to the Deputy Director of Education under provision of the Section of 16-A (7) of the U.P. intermediate Education Act, that reference was kept pending before the Deputy Director of Education for more than two years, admittedly the terms of the Committee of Management is three years and petitioner the had succeeded to the extent that the dispute was kept pending for more than two years. It appears that he was choose in the present election also that it is a most convenient way to disclosed the elected Manager of Committee of Management by relating dispute. The fact that the election was held on 26.9.1989, which according to the petitioner was conducing by one Amaldar Singh. It is not a case of either of the parties that Amaldar Singh was authorised to conduct the election of the Committee of Management. He apparently was an outsider, petitioner claims that he was a election officer. Their was no record of order of the District Inspector of Schools authorising him to conduct the election. It is not a case of either of the parties that Amaldar Singh was authorised to conduct the election of the Committee of Management. He apparently was an outsider, petitioner claims that he was a election officer. Their was no record of order of the District Inspector of Schools authorising him to conduct the election. According to the scheme of the Administration the last Committee of Management is required to hold the election which the period of one month immediately after expiry of the three years. It was conduct the supposed the that outgoing committee of Management would election. The notice for election was published in the newspaper at the instance of respondent No. 3. and Shri Sabhajeet Singh, Manager and present respectively. The person who was conducting the election was to submit the result of the election to the District Inspector of Schools. It is not explained under what circumstances the petitioner himself arose up to submit the result of the election. Accordingly to him he had submitted the result of election on 26.9.1989, whereas the election of the committee of management of the opposite party No. 2 was finalised on 25.9.1989 itself and the same was duly communicated to the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner's counsel pointed out that the advertisement published in the Newspaper itself shows that the result of the election would be published on 26th September, 1989. There he is wrong. He has not read the documents fully. It is clear that the election result would be declared on 26-9-1989, if there was a contest. Since there was no contest in the election the result was communicated to the District Inspector of Schools the same day i.e. on 25-9-1989. 4. The counsel for the petitioner cited number of cases and submitted that it is wholly immaterial that the dispute about the validly elected Committee of Management was raised at the time of the recognition of the Committee of Management on later stage. He submitted that in any case whenever a dispute is raised them, the District Inspector of Schools under legal obligation to refer the matter to the Deputy Director of Education for deciding which of the party is in effective control of the affairs of the Institution. He submitted that in any case whenever a dispute is raised them, the District Inspector of Schools under legal obligation to refer the matter to the Deputy Director of Education for deciding which of the party is in effective control of the affairs of the Institution. He cited 1985 UPLBEC 1128, Committee of Management, Kisan Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Alai (Tundla), District Agra through its Manager and another v. District Inspector of Schools, Agra and another. By this authority the learned Counsel for the petitioner emphasised that in case of sessions dispute between the parties about the management of the Inspection, reference under Section 16-A (7) of the U.P. INtermediate Education Act be made and the Deputy Director of Education would decided the dispute between them about he management of the Institution Deputy Director of Education is also competent to make interim arrangement about the management of the Institution as may be found fit in the circumstances after hearing the parties. I have carefully perused the case law cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The case is wholly distinguishable on facts and circumstances. On the date when the District Inspector of Schools was examining the papers concerning the election of the committee of Management of the Institution he found that the Committee of management headed by respondent No. 2 was duly elected. he passed orders approving his election and attested his signature, It is after passage of more than two months, the petitioner choose to raise a claim that he had submitted papers concerning the election before the District Inspector of Schools, which fact has been denied by the authority concerned. This Court is not in a position to verify the genuineness and correctness of the signature on the disputed receipt filed by the petitioner. In case, the petitioner chose to challenge the validity of the election, it is for him to approach to the Civil Court for adjudication about the validity of the election. This Court is not in a position to verify the genuineness and correctness of the signature on the disputed receipt filed by the petitioner. In case, the petitioner chose to challenge the validity of the election, it is for him to approach to the Civil Court for adjudication about the validity of the election. The learned Counsel cited another case law of (1989)1 UPLBEC 650, Committee of Management of Sri Swami Krishan and Inter College, Bilwar District, Jaunpur and another v. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and other by which he stresses that the power to examine the validity of election of Committee of Management is also with the Deputy Director of education to find out whether the election was held in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the Institute, the Division Bench rightly held that the Deputy Director of Education has such a power to adjudicate about the validity of the election of Committee of Management. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of all case, I do not accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that any serious dispute had arisen on account of claim of two rival Committees of Management of the Institution. Although the petitioners have stated in paragraph 35 of the writ petition that they are in effective control of the affairs of the Institution but they have not filed any document to show that they are in any way concerned with the Management of the Institution. Paragraph 35 of the writ petition has been emphatically denied by the respondents. In the writ petition, the petitioners for the first time raised the claim of dispute about effective control over the affairs of the Management of the Institution. Admittedly, writ petition was filled on 5-1-1990 and admitted. They pleaded to have been elected on 26-9-1989. The petitioner was satisfied after the alleged communication of their election to the District Inspector of Schools on 26-9-1989, and pleaded to have been visiting the office of the District Inspector of Schools regularly enquiring about the recognition. For the first time the petitioners by application dated 17-10-1989 to the DIOS enquired from him about the progress in the matter. The petitioner was satisfied after the alleged communication of their election to the District Inspector of Schools on 26-9-1989, and pleaded to have been visiting the office of the District Inspector of Schools regularly enquiring about the recognition. For the first time the petitioners by application dated 17-10-1989 to the DIOS enquired from him about the progress in the matter. It is noteworthy that he had been regularly visiting the office of the District Inspector of Schools for enquiry in the matter which fact have been added in the writ petition as an afterthought improvement. The other two documents (Annexures 8 and 9 of the writ petition) are letters dated 10-11-1989 and 27-10-1989 petitioner nowhere mentioned that he had been regularly visiting the office of the District Inspector of Schools for enquiry in the matter which fact have been added in the writ petition as an afterthought improvement. The other two documents (Annexures 8 and 9 of the writ petition) are letters dated 10-11-1989 and 27-11-1989 addressed to the District Inspector of Schools. It was nowhere claimed that they are duly elected and have effective control in the affairs of Management of the Institution, or raised nay claim against the rival Committee of Management of the Institution. Thus, it is clear that there was no serious dispute about the claim of the rival Committee of Management before the District Inspector of Schools, It is only at the time of filing of the writ petition it was drafted in the manner to make out a case under Section 16-A (7) of the Act. It is not correct to say that whenever a dispute of rival Committee of Management is raised, it would be necessary to refer the case under Section 16-A (7) of the Act to the Deputy Director of Education. In cases where the validity of the election is challenged, the proper course would be to approach the Civil Courts. It is only is cases where serious dispute arises in respect to election of rival Committee of Management of affairs of the institution. It would be necessary for the District Inspector of Schools to refer the matter to the Dy. Director of Education under Section 16-A (7) of the Act. It is only is cases where serious dispute arises in respect to election of rival Committee of Management of affairs of the institution. It would be necessary for the District Inspector of Schools to refer the matter to the Dy. Director of Education under Section 16-A (7) of the Act. The petitioners have failed to show that there was any serious dispute about e election of the office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Institution on the date when the District Inspector of Schools approved and accepted the election of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as Committee of management of the Institution and the attestation of the signature of the respondent No. 2 by District Inspector of Schools. No claim for effective control over the affairs of management of the Institution was raised by the petitioners before the District Inspector of Schools at any stage which may attract the provision of Section 16-A (7) of the Act. It was raised for the first time in this petition, hence no writ for mandamus can be issue to the District Inspector of Schools for referring the dispute about the claim of the parties under Section 16-A (7) of he Act. The petitioners have no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to cost.