JUDGMENT : R.A. SHARMA, J. 1. According to both the parties election of the committee of management of Hitkari Kisan Inter College, Sakauti Tanda, Meerut (herein-after referred to as the college) was held on 4-12-1986. It is admitted to the parties that according to the Scheme of Administration of the college the term of the committee of management was three years plus one month. The term of the committee of management so elected on 4-12-1988 came to an end on 3/4-1-1992. According to the Petitioner, before the expiry of the term, an election of the committee of management was held on 23-12 1991 in which Petitioner's committee was elected. However, according to the Respondent represented by Sri A.K. Yog, election was held on 23-12-1991 but only the respondent's committee was elected. As there was a dispute between the two rival committees of management, the District Inspector of Schools referred the matter to the Deputy Director of Education for adjudication u/s 16-A (7) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act. The Deputy Director of Education has passed an order dated 22-2-1992 holding that the term of the earlier committee of management has come to an end on 4-1-1992 and in view of that finding, has by way of interim arrangement appointed Sri K.C. Govil. Principal, Govt. Inter College, Meerut as PRABANDH SANCHALAK for the college in question. It is this order, which has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the Deputy Director of Education has no jurisdiction to appoint Prabandh Sanchalak during the pendency of the dispute before him u/s 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act and in this connection has placed reliance on a decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education 1992(1) UP LB EC 327. It has further been argued that Scheme of Administration does not authorities the Deputy Director of Education to appoint Prabandh Sanchalak during the pendency of the dispute before him under the above provisions. It is not possible to agree with the learned Counsel. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management v. District Inspector of Schools 1984 EC 273 has held that the Deputy Director has implied power to make interim arrangement for management of the institution during the pendency of the dispute before him. It is not possible to agree with the learned Counsel. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management v. District Inspector of Schools 1984 EC 273 has held that the Deputy Director has implied power to make interim arrangement for management of the institution during the pendency of the dispute before him. Relevant extract from the said judgment is reproduced below : We are unable to accept that the Deputy Director of Education has no power to make interim arrangement for management of the institution. We are of the opinion that when the Deputy Director is seized of the dispute about the validity of the two rival managements, he is also empowered to pass interim orders regarding the management of the institution. A tribunal which has power to decide a dispute finally has, inherent powers to pass such orders as it deems fit and proper for the proper management of the institution during the pendency of the dispute. The decision of the learned Single Judge referred to here-in-above has no bearing on the question. In that case the learned Judge held that the Deputy Director of Education cannot declare the election of both the committees of management as invalid and thereafter appoint a Prabandhak Sanchalak. The question of power of Deputy Director of Education to make interim arrangement pending dispute was not involved in that case. 3. Regarding the second submission of the learned Counsel, it also lacks merit. When a Court or authority has inherent and implied power to make interim arrangement, the Scheme of Administration does not have much relevance. Power to make an interim arrangement, is derived from the provisions of section 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act and not from the provisions of the Scheme of Administration. 4. In the instant case, as mentioned above, the term of the committee of management elected on 4-12-1988 came to an end on 4-1-1992 and it was the duty of the Deputy Director of Education before whom the dispute was pending to male interim arrangement for running the institution. He having done so, no exception can be taken to the impugned order. The writ petition is as such, liable to be dismissed. 5. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary that the Deputy Director of Education should decide the dispute expeditiously. He having done so, no exception can be taken to the impugned order. The writ petition is as such, liable to be dismissed. 5. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary that the Deputy Director of Education should decide the dispute expeditiously. I accordingly direct the Deputy Director of Education to decide the above dispute within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is dismissed.