JUDGMENT : R.A. Sharma, J. Associate District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, who was appointed as PRABANDH SANCHALAK (hereinafter referred to as the Administrator) by Deputy Director of Education vide his order dated 1-6-1988 for Janta Inter College, Ratnupur, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the College), held election of the committee of management of the college on 7-6-1990 and submitted the papers before the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the D.I.O.S.) for approval and attestation of the signature of Petitioner No. 2 as the manager of the managing committee. The D.I.O.S. attested the signature of Petitioner No. 2 and recognised the newly elected committee of management vide his order dated 19-6-1990. Since then the Petitioner No. 1, which the committee of management and the Petitioner No. 2, who is its manager have been managing the college. However, on a complaint made by Respondent No. 5 the Director of Education asked the Deputy Director of Education to decide the validity of the constitution of the committee of management of the Petitioners u/s 16-A (7) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Petitioners challenged the above direction by means of a writ petition, which was disposed of by this Court on 26-8-1992 with the observation that the Petitioners should make a representation before the Deputy Director of Education who has issued notice and before whom the matter is pending. Petitioners, thereafter, made a representation before the Deputy Director of Education, which has been rejected by him vide his order dated 30-9-1992 and by another order dated 3-10-1992 he has declared the election of the committee of management of the Petitioners as illegal and has appointed Administrator for running and managing the college and holding the election of the committee of management. Thereafter, the D.I.O.S. in pursuance of the above orders of the Deputy Director of Education has attested the taking over charge of the college by the Administrator on 7-9-1992. This order of the D.I.O.S. has been filed as Annexure-I to the Supplementary affidavit. It is against these orders that this writ petition has been filed. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 5. learned Counsel for the Petitioners has stated that he does not want to file rejoinder affidavit and has also stated that he is not pressing the writ petition against Respondent No. 4. It is against these orders that this writ petition has been filed. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 5. learned Counsel for the Petitioners has stated that he does not want to file rejoinder affidavit and has also stated that he is not pressing the writ petition against Respondent No. 4. I have heard Sri R.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sarvasri R.G. Padya and Namwar Singh on behalf of the Respondent No. 5. 3. The only question, which has been raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that as there are no two or more rival managing committees, who have laid their claim to manage the college, the Deputy Director of Education does not have jurisdiction to decide the validity of the election of the committee of management u/s 16-A (7) of the Act. This controversy has already been decided by two Division Benches of this Court in Committee of Management v. D.I.O.S. 1992 ACJ 505 and Chandrakesh Rai v. Deputy Director of Education 1985 UP LB EC 1124, wherein it has been laid down that unless there are two or more rival committees of management laying their claim for management of the college, Deputy Director of Education does not have jurisdiction to decide the validity of the election. Relevant extract from the case of Committee of Management v. D.I.O.S. (supra) is reproduced below : 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. 4. 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. 4. learned Counsel for the Respondents have placed reliance on a decision of learned Single Judge in Committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education 1991 ALJ 173, which has also been relied upon by the Deputy Director of Education in the impugned order, wherein the learned Single Judge has held that it is not necessary that there should be two parallel committees of management for inviting the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Education u/s 16-A (7) of the Act. It appears that the decisions of the two Division Benches of this Court mentioned above were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge on account of which a contrary decision has come into existence. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is contrary to and inconsistent with the aforesaid two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court, and as such, has to be treated as per incuriam and cannot be held to be binding. 5. learned Counsel for the Respondents have further argued that power of the Deputy Director of Education to appoint the Administrator includes the power to decide the validity of the actions taken by the Administrator. It is not possible to agree with the learned Counsel. Similar plea was unsuccessfully raised before this Court. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22693 of 1992, the Committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education, decided on 29-9-1992, relevant extract from which is reproduced below : The submission of the learned Counsel is that power to appoint Administrator under clause 4 of the Scheme includes the incidental power to find out whether a Committee of Management has been validly elected and if the Deputy Director finds that there 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. 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. 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(I) 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. 6. From 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. For the reasons given above, this writ petition is allowed with costs. The impugned orders dated 30-9-1992 and 3-10-1992, passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Respondent No. 1 and the order dated 8-10-1992, passed by the D.I.O.S. are quashed. Respondents are directed not to interfere with the working of the management of the Petitioners on the basis of the impugned orders.