JUDGMENT M.P. Singh. J. 1. These are two connected writ petitions arising out of the same order dated 4-2-1994 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Meerut region-I, Meerut setting aside the elections of both the rival parties and issuing direction for holding a fresh election. 2. The dispute in both the cases is confined to the limited question as to whether Ram Niwas Tyagi was elected as Manager on 29-5-1992 (as asserted in Writ petition No. 6046/94) or Chandra Pal Singh was elected as Manager on 25-5-1992 (as asserted in Writ petition No. Nil. of 1994). There is an institution known as Janhitkari Inter College Chhilora, District Meerut which is governed by the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It has a duly approved Scheme of Administration framed under section 16-A of the Act. 3. On 21-5-1989 the election of the Committee of Management was held in which Pandit Kishori Lal Sharma was elected as President end Harbansh Lal as Manager of the College. The term of the Committee of Management was to expire on 7-7-1992, 4. Before the fresh election took place, the Deputy Director of Education passed an order on 1-5-1992 exercising hit power under section 6 (2) of the Payment of Salaries Act, 1971 appointing Sri Shyam Lal Sharma as authorised controller. The said order was challenged by way of writ petition No. 15597 of 1992 and order maintaining status-quo was passed on 7-5-1992. The Deputy Director of Education passed an order on 16-10-1992 recommending for the appointment of an authorised controller. This order was challenged in writ petition No. 42800 of 1992, Committee of Management Janhitkari inter College v. Additional Director and others. Both the writ petitions were heard and decided on 21-12-1992. The writ petitions were heard and decided on 21-12-1992. The order of the Deputy Director of Education appointing authorised controller was set aside and the District Inspector of Schools was directed to ensure that salary with arrears was paid to the concerned teachers in accordance with the Rules. 5. In the meantime two parallel committees, on the basis of elections dated 25-5-1992, and 29-5-1992 started claiming their rights of managing the Institution. 6. The matter was referred to the Deputy Director of Education for deciding the claim of the rival committees of management in accordance with the provisions of section 16-A (7) of the Act. 5. In the meantime two parallel committees, on the basis of elections dated 25-5-1992, and 29-5-1992 started claiming their rights of managing the Institution. 6. The matter was referred to the Deputy Director of Education for deciding the claim of the rival committees of management in accordance with the provisions of section 16-A (7) of the Act. He decided the dispute on 4-2-1994 holding that both the elections were not in accordance with law and they were set aside Further direction was issued to the District Inspector of Schools to hold fresh election within four months. On the same day, by another order, he appointed Sri K. C. Govil, Principal Rajkiya Inter College, Meerut as Prabandh Sanchalak conducting the fresh election these orders are under challenge in these two writ petitions. Both the rival committees of management have challenged these two orders on the ground of being without jurisdiction. Section 16-A (7) of the Act runs as follows : "Wherever there is a dispute with respect to the Management or 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 affair may, for purposes of this Act. be recognised to constitute the committee of Management of such institution until a court of competent jurisdiction direct 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. Explanation:-In determining the question as to who Is in actual control of the affairs of the institution, the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall have regard to the control over the funds of the institution and over the administration, the receipt of income from its properties the Scheme of Administration approved under sub-section (5) and other relevant circumstances." Heard Mr, A. K. Yog, and Mr. V. K. Shuka. appearing on behalf of the rival committees of management. 7. The Scheme of section 16-A (7) shows that the Deputy Director of Education is required only to hold enquiry and to determine as to which of the rival parties should be recognised for the purposes of running the management of the institution. This decision would not be final, it can be subject to the decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction. This decision would not be final, it can be subject to the decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction. He has to confine himself to the question as to who was in the effective control over the was management of the institution. 8. The Explanation appended to the said section gives a guideline to the Deputy Director of Education while deciding this dispute. In determing the question as to who was in effective control of the affairs of the institution, he shall have regard as to who had the control over the funds of the institution and receipt of the income from its property. The provision of section 16-A (7) does not give jurisdiction to the Deputy Director of Education to decide the validity of the election of the office bearers. He has to act within a limited jurisdiction on the question of actual effective control of the management. But. while recording, a finding on this question incidently he can examine the validity of the election so held but he cannot decide that point as a main issue in the cats. In Committee in Management of Subhash Unchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Rajapur (Mowana) Meerut v. Deputy Director of Education, Meerut, 1985 (1) UP LB EC 241 the Deputy Director of Education took a decision that the election said to have been held by the rival claimants to the committee of Management was invalid. He appointed an administrator for holding a fresh election. The claim of both the rival Managers has been rejected. The said order was challenged in the writ petition. A Division Bench of this Court set aside the order holding that the Deputy Director of Education, while exercising his power under section 16-A (7) of the Act, could not have gone into the correctness or otherwise of the election, though he incidently could examine the same in order to come to the conclusion as to which committee was in the effective control of the Management. Similar view was taken by' this court in the case Committee of Management v. Dy. Director of Education, 1993 (1)ALR 340. 9. In the case of Committee of Management. Similar view was taken by' this court in the case Committee of Management v. Dy. Director of Education, 1993 (1)ALR 340. 9. In the case of Committee of Management. Bhakt Vatsal Inter College, Bichhwa District, Mainpuri v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra, 1988 UP LB EC 402, the same view has been taken by this Court, But, on the facts of that case the order of the Deputy Director of Education has been upheld on the ground that he had recorded a clear finding about the effective control over the affairs of the institution. 10. After examining the relevant provisions of the Act and the case law referred to in the preceding paragraphs I am of the view that in the instant case the Deputy Director of Education has exceeded his jurisdiction in going into the validity of the elections claimed by the two rival committees of management He could not have held that both the elections were invalid. The only jurisdiction which has been conferred upon him was to record a finding on the question of effective control over the management of the Institution. Of Course while deciding this question incidently the validity of the election could have been gone into. But in the instant case he has completely misdirected himself in not recording any valid finding on the question of effective control over the management of the institution and has decided the matter like an Election Tribunal, holding that the elections were not in accordance with law. So, I am of the opinion that both the orders are wholly without jurisdiction and suffer from error apparent on the face of record. He had mainly to find out as to which party was in the effective control of the administration of the institution In the result the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The order dated 4-2-1994 passed by the opposite party no. 1 holding both the elections as illegal and directing the District Inspector of Schools to take steps for holding a fresh election and the other order passed on the same day appointing Sri K. C. Govil, Principal Rajktya Inter College, Meerut as Prabhandh Sanchalak are hereby quashed. 11. Since in these cases serious allegations of malafide have been made against Sri R. P. Dhyani, the Deputy Director of Education Region-1. Meerut, in the interest of justice. 11. Since in these cases serious allegations of malafide have been made against Sri R. P. Dhyani, the Deputy Director of Education Region-1. Meerut, in the interest of justice. I direct the Director, U. P. Education, Lucknow 'to send this case to some other Deputy Director of Education within a week from the date of service of a certified copy of this order on him with a direction that the matter will be decided by him in accordance with the provisions of section 16 -A (7) of the U P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 within a period of one month from the date of receiving the record and a certified copy tit this order. Petition allowed.