JUDGMENT : R.A. SHARMA, J. 1. In 1979 the Government appointed an authorised controller u/s 16D of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for Naldeo Kuldeo Inter College, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the college). The authorised controller continued to manage the college till 1989. The Government of Uttar Pradesh by its order dated January 24, 1990 revoked the appointment of authorised controller in view of the election of the Committee of Management (Petitioner) of which Petitioner no 2 was the manager, and accordingly directed for handing over the charge and control of the college to that Committee. The charge of the college was accordingly handed over to the Petitioners and signatures of the Petitioner no. 2 as manager were attested. The Petitioners thereafter continued to manage the college. However, the Deputy Director of Education vide his order dated 26-6-1992 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), declared the election of the petitioners' Committee held in 1989 as illegal and appointed an administrator for running and managing the college. It is against this order that the Petitioners have filed this writ petition. 2. A counter affidavit sworn by Sri Sharda Prasad Singh, claiming to be elected manager of the college, has been filed and the Petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit in reply thereto. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Learned Counsel for Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on two grounds viz. (i) the Deputy Director has no jurisdiction to declare the election of Petitioner's Committee as illegal and (ii) the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner. 4. Provisions of Section 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act are attracted when the dispute regarding the right to manage the college is raised by two or more Committees of Management. Unless there are two or more rival managing committees laying their claim to manage the college the Deputy Director of Education does not get jurisdiction under the above provisions to decide the dispute. Unless there are two or more rival managing committees laying their claim to manage the college the Deputy Director of Education does not get jurisdiction under the above provisions to decide the dispute. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management v. District Inspector of Schools 1992 ACJ 505 in which it was laid down as follows : Unless there are two rival Committees of Management claiming the right to manage the institution, there cannot be dispute with respect to the management of the institution, which requires adjudication, by the Deputy Director of Education. Existence of two rival Committees of Management is as such a condition precedent for invoking the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Education under sub-section (7) of section 16-A of the Act. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Chandra Kesh Rai v. Deputy Director of Education 1985 UP LB EC 1124, wherein it was laid down that, "Before a dispute can be referred to the Deputy Director of Education u/s 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act, there should be two rival management committees. 5. In the instant case the admitted position is that there was no dispute raised before the Deputy Director of Education by two or more rival Committees of Management, each claiming exclusive right to manage the college. The Deputy Director as such has no jurisdiction to decide validity of the election of the Petitioner's managing committee. 6. learned Counsel for the Respondents has, however, argued that the answering Respondent has challenged by means of writ petition no. 5428 of 1990 order dated 24-1-1990 of the State Government revoking the appointment of authorised controller and directing handing over the charge to the Petitioner and also subsequent order recognising the Petitioner no. 2 as elected manager of the college. This writ petition was however, dismissed with observation that it is open to the Petitioners therein to challenge the legality of the election of Respondent No. 5 in a proper forum. 2 as elected manager of the college. This writ petition was however, dismissed with observation that it is open to the Petitioners therein to challenge the legality of the election of Respondent No. 5 in a proper forum. On this basis it is submitted by the learned Counsel that the Petitioner approached the Deputy Director of Education, who is proper forum for deciding the validity of the election of the Petitioner and Deputy Director of Education has rightly declared the election of the Petitioner as illegal. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel that the provisions of Section 16-A (7) of the Act are not attracted to the instant case, in as much as there was no claim raised by rival managing committee of the college, learned Counsel has however, placed reliance on clause 4 of the Scheme of Administration of the college, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-8 to the counter-affidavit. In Clause 4 of the Scheme it has been laid down that tenure of members and office-bearers of the Committee of Management being three years their term will come to an end on the expiry of three years and one month. It the further been provided therein that if new Committee of Management is not elected and does not take charge before expiry of the term of previous Committee of Management (three years and one month) the Deputy Director will appoint an Administrator for holding the election and till the election is held the Administrator will continue to manage the college. The submission of the learned Counsel is that power to appoint an Administrator under Clause-4 of the Scheme includes the incidental power to find out whether a Committee of Management has been validity elected and if the Deputy Director finds that three was no valid election of the Committee of Management he will have 'full jurisdiction to declare the election invalid and appoint an Administrator of the institution. It is not possible to agree with the learned Counsel. Clause 4 of the Scheme does not confer any such power on the Deputy Director of Education to decide the validity of the election of the Committee of Management. Once there is prima facie evidence in support of the election of the Committee of Management the Deputy Director looses the jurisdiction for appointing Administrator under Clause 4. Clause 4 of the Scheme does not confer any such power on the Deputy Director of Education to decide the validity of the election of the Committee of Management. Once there is prima facie evidence in support of the election of the Committee of Management the Deputy Director looses the jurisdiction for appointing Administrator under Clause 4. It is not within his power to decide the validity of the election under said Clause 4. Under that Clause the Deputy Director cannot assume power of Election Tribunal. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education 1985 (1) UP LB EC 241 wherein Clause 7 of the Scheme, which is analogous to Clause 4 of the Scheme in the instant case, came up for consideration. Relevant extract from this decision is quoted below : We feel that the question whether a particular election was held in accordance with legal provisions in that regard cannot be gone into by the Deputy Director of Education while dealing with the matter under Clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration or while considering it u/s 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act, except incidentally in the] latter case with a view to decide the question of effective control. Form the above passage it is clear that this Court has held that under the provisions like Clause 7 the Deputy Director of Education cannot go into the question of validity of the election of the managing committee. 7. The second submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is also liable to be accepted. It is in fact not disputed by learned Counsel for Respondents that the impugned order was passed without giving opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner. 8. learned Counsel for the Respondents hrs also argued that the case be remanded to the Deputy Director for deciding it afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. Even this request cannot be accepted because of the reason that the Deputy Director does not have the jurisdiction to investigate and decide the validity of the election of the Petitioner's committee. It is not the case where there is not even prima facie evidence in favour of the election. Even this request cannot be accepted because of the reason that the Deputy Director does not have the jurisdiction to investigate and decide the validity of the election of the Petitioner's committee. It is not the case where there is not even prima facie evidence in favour of the election. Even State Government has, vide its order dated 24-1-1992, held that the Committee of Management of the Petitioners has been elected and it was on this basis that the order appointing authorised controller was revoked by the Government. Thereafter charge was given to the Petitioners and signature of the Petitioner no. 2 was attested by the D.I.O.S. on 1-2-1990 and since then the petitioners' committee is managing the college. To declare the election of this Committee invalid after about two and half years, is highly unjustified. 9. Writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. The impugned order dated 26-6-1992 is quashed.