JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against two separate orders of the District Inspector of Schools passed on 25-1-1994. By the first order the opposite party no. 3 has been recognised as a duly elected Manager. His signature was attested by the second order. 2. Sri Girdhari Lal Higher Secondary School, Chulhawali, Tundala, District Firozabad is an educational institution recognised under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It has a duly approved scheme of administration and the management of the institution is run in accordance with it. The dispute in this case is between two rival committees of management. The petitioner no. 2 Bhagwan Pathak is claiming to be the validly elected Manager on the other hand the opposite party no. 3 has staked his claim as Manager. Both the parties claim that the election took place in the year 1993 but on different dates. 3. Prior to the disputed election of 1993, an election was held on 30-5-1990 in which Ranjeet Singh and Saudan Singh claimed to have been elected as President and Manager respectively. On the other hand Gyan Singh and Viri Singh asserted themselves to be the President and Manager elected on that date. The dispute was referred to the Deputy Director of under section 16 A (7) of the Act. The Deputy Director of Education vide his order dated 28-12-1990 recognised Saudan Singh Manager and Viri Singh as President. 4. The said order was challenged by Ranjeet Singh and Bhagwan Pathak in writ petition no. 918 of 1991. The operation of the order dated 28-12 1990 was stayed. The result was that none of the committee was allowed to function. The District Inspector of Schools exercising his power under section 5 (1) of the U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other, Employees) Act, 1971 passed an order of single operation of the bank account on 21-5-1991. The salary to the teachers and other employees working in the institution had been paid under his signatures. It is admitted to both the parties that an election was held on 30-5-1990. According to the scheme of administration the term of the committee was of three years, which expired on 29-5-l993. No fresh election was held within one month from, the date of expiry of its term by the outgoing committee of management. 5. It is admitted to both the parties that an election was held on 30-5-1990. According to the scheme of administration the term of the committee was of three years, which expired on 29-5-l993. No fresh election was held within one month from, the date of expiry of its term by the outgoing committee of management. 5. Petitioners case is that a fresh election took place on 21-11-1993 in which Bhagwan Pathak; petitioner no 2, was elected as Manager. The relevant papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools on 23-11-1993 for approval. 6. The opposite party no. 3 asserted that the election was held on 1-12-93 in which he was elected as Manager and not on 21-11-1993. Papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools for approval soon thereafter. The District Inspector of Schools after considering the claims of rival parties vide his order dated 25-1-94 recognised the opposite party no. 3 Kamal Singh as the duly elected Manager. His signature was attested by a separate order on the same day for operating the bank account. Both the orders are under challenge in this case. 7. At the admission stage the opposite party no. 3 has put in appearance and filed a counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. Accordingly the case is being disposed of finally. 8. The only question to be decided in this case is whether the impugned orders of the District Inspector of Schools recognising the election of opposite party no. 3 and attesting his signature suffer from any illegality. The District Inspector of Schools gets jurisdiction to recognise the election if there is no dispute between two rival committees. The moment a dispute arises, he ceases to have any jurisdiction over the matter. It is only the Deputy Director of Education, while exercising his power under section 16-A (7) of the Act, who can decide the dispute as to which of the two committees of management was in the effective control of the management. While deciding this question, of course incidently he can examine the validity of the election but he cannot decide it as a main issue. Neither the District Inspector of Schools nor the Deputy Director of Education functions as an Election Tribunal. 9. Both the parties have come forward with their respective elections held in 1993 but on different dates. 10. While deciding this question, of course incidently he can examine the validity of the election but he cannot decide it as a main issue. Neither the District Inspector of Schools nor the Deputy Director of Education functions as an Election Tribunal. 9. Both the parties have come forward with their respective elections held in 1993 but on different dates. 10. The scheme of the Act shows that in case there is a dispute between two rival committees, then under such circumstances the District Inspector of Schools should stay his hands and refer the matter to the Deputy Director of Education under section 16-A (7) of the act. This proposition, as such, is not acceptable to the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3. Relying upon a decision Raj Narain Singh v. District Inspector of School, 1993 ACJ 755 it was contended by him that the matter can be referred to the Deputy Director of Education under section 16-A (7) of the Act only if there, If a serious dispute with regard to the effective control of the management and not otherwise, I am of the view that this case does not in any way protect the impugned order. The ratio of the case of Raj Narain Singh (supra) is (1) if there is no serious dispute of election or effective control, no reference under section 16-A (7) of the Act should be made to the Deputy Director of Education (2) if there is a serious dispute regarding effective control, then the Deputy Director of Education gets the jurisdiction to decide the controversy, (3) in case where the validity of the election is challenged, the proper course would be to approach the Civil Court. 11. Similar view was taken earlier in the case Committee of Management, Inter College, Karanda District Ghazipur v. Deputy Director of Education, 1991 A.W.C. 1139. 12. I respectfully agree with the law laid down in these cases. But in my opinion since a serious dispute has arisen between the committees, the District Inspector of Schools ceased to have jurisdiction over the matter. According to the case set up by both the parties in the instant, case, it is apparent that two elections appear to have been held one on 21-11-93 as claimed by the petitioners, and the other on 1-12-1993 as alleged by the opposite party no. 3. According to the case set up by both the parties in the instant, case, it is apparent that two elections appear to have been held one on 21-11-93 as claimed by the petitioners, and the other on 1-12-1993 as alleged by the opposite party no. 3. This fact alone disentitled the District Inspector of Schools from examining the matter and passing any order. The patties either should have been allowed to get a decision from the Deputy Director of Education under section 16-A (7) of the Act or could have been relegated to the civil suit. 13. In the case Sri Gandhi Vidya Peeth Inter College Ghatampur v. District Inspector of Schools, 1989 (1) UP LB EC. 178 a Division Bench of this Court took the view that the dispute between two rival committees of management regarding valid constitution of the committee of management could not be decided by the District Inspector of Schools. He has to refer the same to the Regional Deputy Director of Education under section 16-A (7). It further went on to say that he has no jurisdiction either to recognise any of the committee of management or past interim order regarding management of the institution. 14. Another Division Bench in the case of Committee of Management, Bhakt Vatsal Inter College Bichhwa, District Mainpuri v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, 1988 U.P. L.B. E.C. 402 has also expressed its view that when there is a dispute regarding validity of the constitution of two committees of management, the Deputy Director of Education while deciding the question of effective control can incidently examine that question as well. The serious effort of the learned counsel for the opposite party was to establish that under no circumstance Bhagwan Pathok, petitioner no. 2, could be elected as Manager because he was not a life member of the society. He further contended that after the expiry of three years and one month from 30-5-1990 the election could not be held at the instance of outgoing committee of management. It was only the Prabandh Sanchalak who could have conducted the election. 15. 2, could be elected as Manager because he was not a life member of the society. He further contended that after the expiry of three years and one month from 30-5-1990 the election could not be held at the instance of outgoing committee of management. It was only the Prabandh Sanchalak who could have conducted the election. 15. These are the factual disputes which could be either gone into by the Deputy Director of Education while exercising the power under section 16-A (7) of the Act about the effective control or in case he was satisfied that the dispute related to the validity of two elections, then the matter could be decided by the Civil Court. 16. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the moment it came to the notice of the District Inspector of Schools that two different parties were claiming their rights on the basis of election held on two different dates, he should not have proceeded with the matter and recognised any one of the parties. He should have referred the matter to the Deputy Director of Education. Having not done so he committed illegality and both the orders suffer from error apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly I am of the view that the matter may be referred to the Deputy Director of Education under section 16-a (7) of the Act to decide the dispute regarding the effective control over the management of the institution. While doing so he shall have regard to the control over the funds of the institution and over the administration, the receipt of income from its properties and also the provisions of the scheme of administration approved under sub-section (5) of sec. 16 and other relevant circumstances. 17. While deciding the dispute he will also keep in mind the decision of this Court in Committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education Meerut, 1988 UP. L.B. E.C. 1057 in which it was ruled out that no election could be held by the out-going management after the expiry of one month of its term. If the out-going committee failed to hold election, then according to the scheme of administration, if it provides, only the Prabandh Sanchalak to be appointed by the Deputy Director of Education, could have held the election. If the out-going committee failed to hold election, then according to the scheme of administration, if it provides, only the Prabandh Sanchalak to be appointed by the Deputy Director of Education, could have held the election. He will also examine and decide what her the election dated 21-11-1993 could be held under the supervision of Bhagwan Pathak and whether he was a life member of the society. While deciding the dispute regarding effective control he can always incidently examine the validity of the election to come to the conclusion about the effective control. Reference may be made to the case Committee of Management of Subhash Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Rajapur (Mowana) Meerut v. Deputy Director of Education Meerut, 1985 (1) U.P. LB. E.G. 241 and Committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education, 1991 (1) A.L.R. 340. 18. In case the Deputy Director of Education while deciding the controversy comes to the conclusion that Bhagwan Pathak had no right to hold the election on 21-11-1993 then he will be free to record his own finding incidently about the validity of the election. Accordingly the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Both the orders dated 25-1-1994 are hereby quashed. The Deputy Director of Education on receiving the reference from the District Inspector of Schools will decide the controversy within a period of one month after giving opportunity to both the parties. He is free to pass interim order in case he so desires. Petition allowed.