O. P. JAIN, J. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order, Annexure 12 to the writ petition dated 14th September, 1993 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Mau. 2. The brief facts leading to this order are that the election of the Executive Committee was held on 4th October, 1992 and according to the petitioner the office bearers were elected on 28-2-1993. Petitioners submitted the papers to the D. LO. S. on 4-3-1993 but for one reason or the other the D. I. O. S. did not pass any order on the papers, submitted by the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, filed writ petition No, 19130 of 1993 and they obtained an interim order on 26-5-1993 which runs as under : "in the meantime the D. I. O. S. concerned may pass appropriate order is papers have been sent by the petitioners who is said to have sent the papers for attestation of signature on the basis of r ion on 4-10- 1992. If the D. I. O. S. has received the papers, as aged by the petitioner, he will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording opportunity, if any, to any party within 4 weeks of date of production of certified copy of this order or to show cause within the same period. He will also permit the peti tioners for making arrangement for interim period. " 3. After passing of the above order by this Court, the D. I. O. S. heard the parties. The respondents relied on the election dated 14-4-1993 and by the impugned order the D. I. O. S. recognised the election dated 14-4-1993. He further held that the election dated 28-2-1993 was not the election of the Committee of Management but it was the election of Sahayak Samiti. Being aggrieved against the order dated 14th September, 1993 this writ petition has been filed. ~ 4. I have heard Sri S. N. Srivastava for the petitioner and Sri R. N. Singh for the respondent. Learned Standing Counsel has argued the case on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 5. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that once there were two rival claimants before the D. I. O. S. he had no option but to refer the dispute to the Dy. Director of Education under Section 16-A (7) of the Act of 1921. 1 and 2. 5. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that once there were two rival claimants before the D. I. O. S. he had no option but to refer the dispute to the Dy. Director of Education under Section 16-A (7) of the Act of 1921. This legal proposition is supported by 1989 ALR 185-Committee of Manage ment Gandhi Vidyapeeth Inter College v. D. I. O. S. Kanpur Dehat. In fact there in no dispute regarding the principles. 6. The contention on behalf of the respondent is that the D. I. O. S. did not have a rival claimants before him and, therefore, he need not have referred the dispute to the Dy. Director of Education. The Second contention on behalf of the respondents is that the D. I. O. S. was simply obeying the mandamus issued by this Court on 26-5-1993 and, therefore, no fault can be found with his order on this point. Learned counsel for the respondent has cited 1964 ALJ 155, para 10 at page 162 in support of the contention that a party who has submitted to jurisdiction and has taken a chance of the matter being decided in its favour cannot turn around and question the jurisdiction of the same authority. 7. I have given careful consideration to this argument but I do not find it acceptable because while passing the order dated 26-5-93 this could have never been the intention of this Court to override the provisions of Section 16-A (7)of the Act of 1921. A perusal of the order dated 26-5-93 shows that what the Court has stated is that the D. I. O. S. will pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Therefore, the D. I. O. S. had clearly a duty to refer the dispute to the Dy. Director of Education. 8. A question arose during the course of argument as to whether the petitioners were aware of the election dated 14-4-93 or not. This election was intimated to the D. I. O. S. on 19-4-93, according to the impugned order. The petitioners wrote a letter, Annexure 7 dated 5-5-93 and another letter Annexure 8 dated 11-5-93 but the D. I. O. S. never informed that there is some rival part who has claimed to be ejected on 14-4-J993. This election was intimated to the D. I. O. S. on 19-4-93, according to the impugned order. The petitioners wrote a letter, Annexure 7 dated 5-5-93 and another letter Annexure 8 dated 11-5-93 but the D. I. O. S. never informed that there is some rival part who has claimed to be ejected on 14-4-J993. Therefore, it be said that the petitioners were aware of the two rival election on 26-3-93 when they obtained the above order from this Court. 9 The learned counsel has argued that the matter need not be referred to the by. Director of Education because the election dated 28-2-93 was the election of Sahayak Samiti. According to the Scheme of Administration, Annexurel, the Committee of Management is known as Karya-Karim Prabandh Samiti and it consisted of 21 members, out of which 17 were to be elected. The Principal and two senior most teachers and the Sanchalak of the Trust were ex-officio members of the Karyakarini Prabandh Samit,. At page 82 of the petition there is Annexure 16 which is a list of 17 members who were elected on 4-10- 1992. The list bears the caption "jantashiksha Nike an Inter College Dubari Karyakarini Samiti Ke Dinak 4-10-92 ke Nirwachit 17 Sadasyon ki Soochi In para 43 of the counter affidavit the genuineness of this document has been challenged and it has been alleged that the words quoted above were interpolated at a later stage This argument cannot be accepted because alone with the counter affidavit the respondent has annexed CA-7 which is a latter, said to have boon written by Ram Lal Yadav who was member of the Selection committee. Ram Lal Yadav has said that Swords quoted above were inadvertently mentioned. It is not said by Ram Lal Yadav that the above words were interpolated at a later stage. Therefore the contention of the respondent that the election was of Sahayak Samiti cannot be accepted. It may also to added that the figure of IV is also not without some significance. It is not said by Ram Lal Yadav that the above words were interpolated at a later stage. Therefore the contention of the respondent that the election was of Sahayak Samiti cannot be accepted. It may also to added that the figure of IV is also not without some significance. In the Karyakarini Prabandhak Samiti there were 17 elected members whereas in Sahayak Samiti 21 members were to be elected Had this list, Annexure 16 been a list of members of Sahayak Samiti then it should have consisted of 10 In view of above discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that there were two rival Committees before the D. I. O. S. and, therefore it was not open to him to decide the dispute himself and the only alternative for him was to refer the dispute to the Dy. Director of Education. 11 As a result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order. iand Stii 4th September 1993 is quashed and a direction is issued to the D. I. O. S. , Mau to refer the dispute to the Dy. Director of Education, 7th Region, Gorakpur. The D. I. O. S. will refer the matter to the Dy. Director of Education within fifteen days of the receipt of this order and the Dy. Director of Education should decide the dispute, as far as possible. Within two monthes in accordance with the provisions of Section 16-A (7) of the act of 1921. Both the parties are directed to file their written submission before the Dy. Director of Education by 10th of March, 1995. The Dy. Director of Education is free to pass an interim order for the management of the institution till the dispute is not decided. 12 A certified copy of this order may be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, within a week on payment of usual charges. Petition allowed. .