YATINDRA SINGH, J. There is a col lege known as Choudhary Luxmi Narain Inter College, Mandi Shyam Nagar, Dis trict Gautam Budh Nagar (the College ). It is run by a registered society. It is admitted case of the parties that the committee of management of the Society as well as of the College are the same and there is one election. (A reference to the committee of management in this judgment would in clude reference to the College as well as to the Society ). There is a dispute regarding membership of the society, the office bearers of the committee of management, and certain appointments made in the College. This dispute has given rise to numerous writ petitions. Out of these writ petitions eight survive at present and with the consent of the parties they are being decided by the present order. The facts relating to these writ petition are as fol lows: THE FACt The Earlier Writ Petitions 2. Elections to the committee of management were held on 2nd October, 1987 in which Sri Ramesh Kumar Choud hary (the contesting respondent) was elected as the Manager. Subsequently elections were held on 30th September, 1990 and 7th September, 1993. In these elections one Sri Vishnu Dutt Sharma was elected as Manager and Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma (the Petitioner) was elected as Deputy Manager. These elections were recognised on 6th October, 1990 and 10th September, 1993 respectively. In between these two elections one Prabandh Sanchalak was also appointed in 1993. The petitioner had filed a writ petition chal lenging the appointment of the Prabandh Sanchalak whereas the contesting respon dent filed two writ petitions challenging the 1990 and 1993 elections. These three writ petitions were heard and decided ondal. exe 26th September, 1995. The writ petition of the petitioner was allowed and other two writ petitions of the contesting respondent were dismissed with the obser vations that he may approach the relevant authority. The contesting respondent filed a special appeal, which was also dismissed. 1 am informed that a suit has been filed by the contesting respondent which is still pending. 3. The term of the committee of management is three years and elections were again held on 16-6-1996 in which petitioner was alleged to have been elected again. His signatures were also recognised by the District Inspector of Schools Gautam Budh Nagar (the DIGS) on 31st August. 1998. 3. The term of the committee of management is three years and elections were again held on 16-6-1996 in which petitioner was alleged to have been elected again. His signatures were also recognised by the District Inspector of Schools Gautam Budh Nagar (the DIGS) on 31st August. 1998. These elections are disputed. According to the contesting respondent elections were held on llth December, 1998 in which he was elected as the Manager. It appears that the papers of the contesting respondents were also sent but the DIGS by his order dated 10-1 -1999 refused to recognise the signature of the contesting respondent. The 1st writ petition. 4. The petitioners committee of management made few appointments. These are of teachers (by direct and by promotion) and of non-teaching staff. Ac cording to the contesting respondent these appointments are illegal on two counts; firstly, they made beyond sanc tioned strength; and secondly, the petitioners committee of management was not entitled to make appointments. These teachers and non-teaching staff is hereinafter referred to as the disputed employees. The salary of these disputed employees was not being paid hence they filed Writ Petition No. 45990 of 1999 (the first writ petition) claiming that salary be paid to them. 2nd and 3rd writ petitions 5. The salary of the disputed employees were also included in the salary bill. This was objected by the DIOS and he passed orders on 29-7-1999 and 2-9-1999 for single operation of accounts. The petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 32277 of 1999 (the second (Writ Petition) and Writ Petition No. 38603 of 1999 (the third writ petition) against the single operation of the accounts on the ground that petitioners signature was recognised and no opportunity was given before pass ing these orders. 4th writ petition 6. It appears that some payment has been made to the disputed employees. The contesting respondent made complaints to the District Magistrate and the DIOS about these illegal appointments and payment. The District Magistrate wrote two letters on 13-9-1999 and 11-10-1999 to the DIOS that the amount illegally disbursed may be recovered. The DIOS in pursuance of this issued notices dated 5-10-1999 to the petitioner to show cause why the excess amount be not recovered. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 45991 of 1999 (the fourth writ petition) against these letters of the District Magistrate and the show cause notice of the DIOS. The DIOS in pursuance of this issued notices dated 5-10-1999 to the petitioner to show cause why the excess amount be not recovered. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 45991 of 1999 (the fourth writ petition) against these letters of the District Magistrate and the show cause notice of the DIOS. 5th writ petition 7. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the DIOS decided the entire dis pute by his order dated 20th November, 1999. He has held that the petitioners committee of management is not a valid committee of management, and the ap pointments of the disputed employees are illegal. This was held on two grounds; first ly, these appointments have been made beyond the sanctioned strength and secondly, they are made by the petitioners committee of management, which is il legal. The petitioner has filed Writ Peti tion No. 51056 of 1999 (the fifth writ peti tion) against this order of the DIOS. 6th and 7th writ petitions 8. The appointment of the disputed employees have been held to be illegal by the order of DIOS dated 20-11-1999. They have also filed Writ Petition No. 3762 of 2000 (the sixth writ petition) and Writ Petition No. 12353 of 2000 (the seventh writ petition) against the order of the DIOS. 8th writ petition 9. The petitioner apart from chal lenging the order of the DIOS dated 20-11-1999 by means of writ petitions, also took proceeding before the Joint Director of Education 1st Region, Meerut (the JDE, who by his order dated 24-2-2000 has set aside the order of the DIOS dated 20-11-1999. The contesting respondent has filed Writ Petition No. 12327 of 2000 (the eighth writ petition) against the order of the JDE. POINTS FOR DETERMINATIOn 10. I have heard Sri Ajit Kumar and Sri R. K. Pandey, counsel for the petitioner and the disputed employee and Sri Arun Tandon, counsels for the contesting respondent and the standing councel for the State official. With the consent of the parties I have consolidated these writ petitions and finally deciding them at this stage. In these writ petition two questions are involved. : The first question relates to the rival committee of management. Which committee of management should be recognized. ? The second question relates to the appointeemtn and payment of salary to the disputed employee. Were the appointment validity made? In these writ petition two questions are involved. : The first question relates to the rival committee of management. Which committee of management should be recognized. ? The second question relates to the appointeemtn and payment of salary to the disputed employee. Were the appointment validity made? 1st QUESTION-COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENt The Order of the DIOS dated 20-11-1999 and the JDE dated 24-2- 2000 Are Illegal. 11. According to the petitioner the last elections were held on 26-7-1998 and his signatures were recognised. This is dis puted by the contesting respondent. Ac cording to him elections were held on llth December, 1998 in which he was elected as the Manager. Be as it may there was rival claim of the committee of management. This could not be decided by the DIOS. He ought to have been Deferred the question to the JDE under Section 16-A (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act and the JDE ought to are decided the case after opportunity to the parties concerned. It is not disputed that JDE by his order dated 24-2-2000 decided the case without any op portunity to the contesting respondent. In view of the same order of DIOS dated 20-11-1999 is illegal and so is the order of the JDE dated 24-2-2000. Both orders are quashed. The JDE will decide this question afresh after giving opportunity to the parties con cerned in accordance With Section 16-A (7) of Intermediate Education Act. 2nd QUESTION-APPOINTMENTS O F THE DISPUTED EMPLOYEEs The JDE should decide this question. 12. The DIOS had held the appoint ments of the disputed employees to be illegal by his order dated 20th November, 1999 on two grounds first, that it was made beyond the sanctioned strength of the Col lege and second, that this was made by the illegally constituted committee of management. The part of the order of the DIOS relating to the committee of management has been quashed by me and the matter is being sent back to the JDE for re-decision afresh. It will be ap propriate that question of appointment and illegal payment of salary to the dis puted employees may also be decided by the JDE. The JDE may first decide the question of the rival committee of management and thereafter he may decide the question about the appointments of the disputed employees. It will be ap propriate that question of appointment and illegal payment of salary to the dis puted employees may also be decided by the JDE. The JDE may first decide the question of the rival committee of management and thereafter he may decide the question about the appointments of the disputed employees. Order of Single Operation of the Ac counts is Illegal 13. The DIOS has passed the orders on 29-7-1999 and 2-9-1999 for single operation of the accounts on the ground that illegal payments are being made to the disputed employees. These orders have-been passed by the DIOS without giving any opportunity to the committee of management and as such are illegal. Both of them are hereby quashed. But as the question of illegal appointments of the disputed employees is being sent back to the JDE, no payment will be made to the disputed employees at present. They may be paid after the decision of the JDE. CONCLUSIOn 14. The order of the DIOS dated 29-7-1999 and 2-9-1999 (for the single operation of the accounts) and order dated 20th November, 1999 recognising the contest ing respondent as well as order of JDE dated 24-2-2000 are quashed. 15. The parties will appear before the JDE on 24-4-2000 and file their repre sentations and objections. The JDE after affording them reasonable opportunity will decide about the rival claim of the committee of management as well as about appointment of the disputed employees. He will decide the controversy at an early date and if possible within three months from the date of receipt of this copy. With these directions the aforesaid writ petitions are disposed of. 16. Let copy of this judgment be; placed in the record of Writ Petition Nos. 32277 of 1999; 38603 of 1999; 45991 of 1999; 51506 of 3999; 3762 of 2000; 12353 012000 and 12327 of 2000. Petition disposed of. .