V. K. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) BY means of present writ petition, Committee of Management of Dayanad Uchchatter madhyamik Vidyalaya, Thaur, Khewasipur, Jaunpur through its Manager Parmanand is assailing the validity of the order dated 13. 9. 2003 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Vth Region, varanasi by means of which claim of the petitioners Managing Committee has been disapproved and claim of the Managing Committee headed by Shambhu Dutt Mishra as Manager has been accepted. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case as mentioned in the writ petition is that there is an Institution known as daya Nand Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Thaur, Khewasipur, Jaunpur, which is a duly recognized institution under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The said institution has got Scheme of Administration, duly approved by the Deputy Director of education. The term of the Managing committee of the institution is three years and one month. Last election of the Committee of Management of the institution was held on 20. 1. 1999 wherein one Ram Roop was elected as President and petitioner No. 2 was elected ass Manager. Dispute was raised by Sri S. D. Misra, respondent No. 5 before the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and then reference was made under Section 16-A (7) of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the same was adjudicated by the Joint Director of Education on 26. 7. 1999 holding that petitioner No. 2 is validly elected Manager of the Committee of Management and is in effective control of the institution and elections had been held in consonance with the provision contained in the Scheme of Administration Pursuant to the order passed by the Joint Director of Education, recognition was accorded on 19. 8. 1999. Petitioner No. 2 continued to function as Manager of the institution and as term of the Managing Committee of the institution was coming to an end as such request was made to DIOS seeking permission for holding election of the Committee of management. It has further been contended that election programme was published in newspaper "dainik Manyawar" dated 24. 1. 2002 and as per election programme, 31. 1. 2002 was fixed for nomination, 1. 2. 2002 was fixed for scrutiny, 2. 2. 2002 was fixed for withdrawal and 3. 2. 2002 was fixed for election. It has further been contended that election programme was published in newspaper "dainik Manyawar" dated 24. 1. 2002 and as per election programme, 31. 1. 2002 was fixed for nomination, 1. 2. 2002 was fixed for scrutiny, 2. 2. 2002 was fixed for withdrawal and 3. 2. 2002 was fixed for election. It has been contended that as per published election programme election had been held wherein Sri Raja Ram was elected as President and petitioner no. 2 was elected as manager and thereafter-entire papers were transmitted to DIOS on 4. 2. 2002. It appears that in the meantime respondent No. 5 also set up election and submitted papers before DIOS in respect of the same. The District Inspector of Schools faced will the situation that there were two rival claimants, referred the dispute for being adjudicated under Section 16-A (7)of U. P. Intermediate education Act, 1921. Thereafter notices had been issued for appearance. Petitioners submitted their reply on 5. 9. 2002. During pendency of the proceeding President died and in his place one ram Chandra, who were elected as President also submitted his reply. Document in regard to effective control is also sought to be brought on record. During pendency of the dispute authorized Controller was appointed and directives were issued for holding of election. At this juncture petitioners approached this Court and this Court on 18. 11. 2002 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order. After the aforementioned order had been passed by this Court, directives had been issued for releasing salary bill at the level of DIOS, Jaunpur. ( 3 ) THIS order was also subject-matter of challenge before this Court and this Court on 4. 3. 2002 disposed of the writ petition by directing the Joint Director of Education to decide the dispute pertaining to management expeditiously preferably within three months. It has been contended that thereafter no hearing was done in the matter and the matter was delayed. Thereafter on 10. 9. 2002 notice was sent for hearing on 26. 9. 2003 but subsequently date was changed 12. 9. 2003. On 12. 9. 2003 hearing has been completed and thereafter order had been passed which is subject-matter of challenge. ( 4 ) TO this writ petition, counter affidavit has been filed and therein, the factum of earlier election has not been disputed. 2002 notice was sent for hearing on 26. 9. 2003 but subsequently date was changed 12. 9. 2003. On 12. 9. 2003 hearing has been completed and thereafter order had been passed which is subject-matter of challenge. ( 4 ) TO this writ petition, counter affidavit has been filed and therein, the factum of earlier election has not been disputed. However, much stress has been laid on the fact that petitioners are not even primary member of the society. This fact has. been admitted that order dated 26. 7. 1999 and consequential order dated 19. 8. 1999 have not been challenged and Parmanad Yadav continued to function as Manager. Much stress has been laid on the fact that certain amount has been embezzled by Parmanand Yadav. In respect to membership of Parmanand Yadav also factual statement has been sought to be mentioned in the writ petition. It has further been contended that there is no cutting and over writing in the notice and on 12. 9. 2003 both the petitioners and respondents were heard. It has been contended that finding in respect to Parmanad Yadav that he is not member of the general body is correct finding and no material in support of the membership has been filed Annexure-18 has been termed to be manipulated. It has also been alleged that no resolution had been passed by the Committee of Management for enrolling petitioner No. 2 as member and in this background it has been prayed that writ petition be dismissed. ( 5 ) REJOINDER affidavit has also been filed and therein statement of fact mentioned in the counter affidavit has been rebutted and that of writ petition has been reiterated. In respect to membership, documentary evidence has been sought to be brought on record and it has been contended that before Joint Director of Education, affidavit was filed on 30. 7. 2003 in respect to membership of petitioner No. 2 of general, body and therein it has been contended that fees was deposited on 10. 1. 2007 with Chhoty Lal Yadav and same was approved by the Managing committee as well as general body on 28. 1. 1997 and 13. 10. 1997 respectively It has further been contended that Deputy Manager Sri Ram Chandra Yadav resigned and then in his place petitioner No. 2 was elected as Deputy Manager on 17. 8. 1997. 1. 2007 with Chhoty Lal Yadav and same was approved by the Managing committee as well as general body on 28. 1. 1997 and 13. 10. 1997 respectively It has further been contended that Deputy Manager Sri Ram Chandra Yadav resigned and then in his place petitioner No. 2 was elected as Deputy Manager on 17. 8. 1997. In respect to Annexure-CA-II, III and IV, they have been termed to be forged documents. In respect to respondent No. 5 it has been contended that he is not even primary member of the general body and finding recorded in the order dated 26. 7. 1999 is perverse and in no way sustainable. ( 6 ) AFTER pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged matter has been taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties. ( 7 ) SRI B. P. Yadav has entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner, Sri D. S. M. Tripathi has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 5 and Sri M. P. S. Niranjan, learned Standing counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos. to 4 and each one of the counsels have made their respective submission in support of the claim of their respective client. ( 8 ) SRI B. P. Yadav has assailed the validity of the order on the ground that Joint Director of education has clearly erred in law, inasmuch as he has not at all decided the dispute within the parameters as provided under Section 16-A (7) of U. P. Intermediate Education Act. It has also been contended that Joint Director of Education has not at all adverted on this aspect of the matter (i) as to who are person/persons who were entitled to convene the meeting and hold the election, (ii) who are the persons entitled to participate in the election. (iii) as to whether election has been held in consonance with the provisions contained in the Scheme of Administration and further opinion in respect to membership is perverse, order be quashed and set aside. ( 9 ) SRI D. S. M. Tripathi, Advocate, and Sri M. P. S. Niranjan, learned Standing Counsel of the other hand has contended that that the order which has been passed is just order and same does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 9 ) SRI D. S. M. Tripathi, Advocate, and Sri M. P. S. Niranjan, learned Standing Counsel of the other hand has contended that that the order which has been passed is just order and same does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 10 ) ON the basis of the argument, which has been advanced and the pleadings which are available on record, this fact is clearly reflected that dispute in question had been referred under section 16-A (7) of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and thus, dispute in question had to be decided on the touch stone of the provisions as contained in the Scheme of Administration. The Joint Director of Education in the present case has not at all gone into question of effective control which is one of the essential requirements for adjudicating the dispute refereed to under section 16-A (7) of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. As the dispute in question has not at all been adjudicated on the parameters as provided under Section 16-A (7) of U. P. Intermediate education Act. 1921 and there is no adjudication on the question of effective control. The said order is clearly vitiated and is liable to be set aside. Even otherwise, Joint Director of Education has clearly erred in law, inasmuch as, Joint Director of Education has totally ignored the validity of the order dated 27. 6. 1999 passed on the earlier occasion inter se same parties and which was final. It is true that aforementioned order was in respect to one particular election but even then finding returned therein, until and unless they were set aside by competent Civil Court were binding inter se parties, inasmuch as orders passed under Section 16-A (7) of U. P. Intermediate education Act, 1921 are subject to decision of Civil Court and thus Joint Director of Education was obliged to take into consideration the order passed by the Joint Director of Education on the earlier occasion. Hear in the present case, the Joint Director of Education has not all adverted himself to the aforementioned adjudication made on the earlier occasion and as such order is bad on this score alone. On the question of membership, petitioner No. 2 by means of affidavit dated 30. 7. Hear in the present case, the Joint Director of Education has not all adverted himself to the aforementioned adjudication made on the earlier occasion and as such order is bad on this score alone. On the question of membership, petitioner No. 2 by means of affidavit dated 30. 7. 2003 had placed documents to substantiate the membership, but this documents have not even been referred to and this shows no application of mind on the part of the Joint Director of education, while deciding the dispute. ( 11 ) WHILE deciding the dispute under Section 16-A (7) of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the Joint Director of Education apart from going into question of effective control has to be incidentally for prima facie satisfaction that elections are valid namely (i) right of person/groups of person, who had convened meeting and held election (ii) persons who had participated in the election, has right to participate in the election (iii) elections have been held as per provisions contained in the Scheme of Administration. ( 12 ) HERE in the present case, no such exercise has been undertaken by the Joint Director of education and as such decision making procedure adopted by the Joint Director of Education is faulty on the face of it and as such same deserves to be set aside. Consequently writ petition is allowed. Order dated 13. 9. 2003 passed by the Joint Director of Education and other consequential action is hereby quashed and set aside and Joint Director of Education is directed to decide the dispute afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. ( 13 ) WITH these observations. Writ petition is allowed and disposed. . .