Ran Vijai Singh, J.— 1. This intra-court appeal has arisen from the judgment/order dated 22.12.2011 in Writ Petition No. 27144 of 2007 whereby the learned Single Judge quashed the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Gautam Budh Nagar, dated 01.06.2007 disapproving the list of members submitted by respondent nos. 6 and 7. However, the second prayer commanding the respondents not to proceed with the election process of the Committee of Management of the institution in question scheduled to be held on 12.06.2007 on the basis of the impugned order dated 01.06.2007, the learned Single Judge, taking into account that two elections, one in the year 2007 and the other in the year 2010 since have already been conducted and was not subject matter of challenge in the writ petition, the same cannot be granted. However, it would be open to respondent nos. 6 and 7, who were petitioners, to approach the appropriate authority for seeking quashing of the election based upon the voter list dated 01.06.2007, which has been quashed, would be examined by the Prescribed Authority in the light of the direction issued by this Court that the impugned order dated 01.06.2007 has been quashed after hearing the parties within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. In the event, the election is found to be bad in law, the Authorised Controller would be directed to have the voter list certified in accordance with law and thereafter with the above direction the election would be held within a period of two months thereafter. With the above direction the writ petition was finally disposed of. The appellant, aggrieved by the aforesaid order, has preferred this appeal. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal is that the Jawahar Inter College, Maincha, District Gautam Budh Nagar is a recognized institution under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act of 1921') and is run and managed by a Committee of Management elected in accordance with the Scheme of Administration duly approved by the Director of Education. Respondent nos. Respondent nos. 6 and 7 filed the aforesaid writ petition (Writ Petition No. 27144 of 2007) challenging the validity of the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 01.06.2007 on the ground, inter-alia, that the same has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing. It further appears that during the pendency of the writ petition, two elections of the Committee of Management, one in the year 2007 and the other in the year 2010, were held as there were no interim order. The learned Single Judge set aside the impugned order dated 01.06.2007 but did not quash the two elections held during the pendency of the writ petition, as the same were not questioned or challenged in the writ petition nor any prayer for its quashing was sought. It further appears that the election of the Committee of Management of the institution was held on 16.10.2002 under the supervision of the Election Officer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools, Gautam Budh Nagar, who happens to be one Shri Mahendra Singh, Principal, Mahirbhoj Inter College, Gautam Budh Nagar. In the aforesaid election, respondent no.6 was elected as Manager and respondent no.7 was elected as President. It appears, the respondent no.6, the predecessor of the appellant herein, has raised certain objections and after enquiry, the District Inspector of Schools has recommended for recognition of the duly elected Committee of Management. It further appears that a complaint was made in respect of the election held on 16.10.2002, which was, as per report of the Deputy Director of Education, submitted to the Regional Level Committee, that it was held in accordance with law. However, pending decision before the Regional Level Committee, District Inspector of Schools attested the signature of the respondents. It further appears that pertaining to the aforesaid dispute, two writ petitions were filed by the respondents, namely, Writ Petition No. 34956 of 2003 and Writ Petition No. 34780 of 2003 and both the petitions were clubbed together by order dated 13.08.2003 and the operation of the order of the District Inspector of Schools attesting the signature of the respondents dated 25.06.2003 was kept in abeyance, against which Special Appeal No. 806 of 2003 was disposed of vide order dated 02.09.2003 with the request to the learned Single Judge to decide both the writ petitions expeditiously. However, both the writ petitions were subsequently dismissed as infructuous on 02.11.2007 with the observation to hold fresh election in accordance with law. 3. It appears that a complaint was made on 5.2.2003 for appointment of Authorized Controller in the institution. On the said complaint the Deputy Director of Education had required the respondent to appear before him on 5.2.2003, in which the Deputy Director of Education has submitted a report to the Regional Level Committee holding that the election on 16.10.2002 was conducted in accordance with law. 4. It appears that pending decision before the Regional Level Committee, the District Inspector of Schools has attested the signatures of the respondents and as the alleged respondents/petitioners took over the charge vide letter dated 31.7.2003, the Joint Director of Education had required the petitioner to appear before him on 16.4.2003. The said notice was challenged by the respondents/petitioners through Writ Petition No.34956 of 2003. 5. It appears, after the order dated 2.11.2006, a proceeding was initiated for holding the election but according to the appellant, the same was proceeded contrary to law. Therefore, a representation was made to the District Inspector of Schools on 24.4.2006 requesting him to first decide the list of members and only thereafter to hold the election in accordance with law. When no action was taken by the District Inspector of Schools, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66992 of 2006 was filed with a prayer to direct the District Inspector of Schools, who was acting as Prabandh Sanchalak, to hold the election after verifying the genuineness of membership of the members for participating in the election. The said writ petition was disposed of on 12.12.2006 with the direction to the District Inspector of Schools to decide the appellant's representation. It is thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools by the impugned order, has held that the list submitted in the year 1993 consisting of 24 members is a valid list and the subsequent list submitted by the respondent/petitioner, was found to be invalid. It is this order which was challenged by the respondents nos. 6 & 7 in Writ Petition No. 2744 of 2007. 6. It is this order which was challenged by the respondents nos. 6 & 7 in Writ Petition No. 2744 of 2007. 6. Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contends that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the direction issued by this court on 12.12.2006 in Writ Petition No. 66992 of 2006 as, by virtue of that order, the District Inspector of Schools was under legal obligation to decide this dispute and that cannot be said to be an order passed without jurisdiction. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondents no. 6 & 7 and the learned Standing Counsel. 8. Refuting the submissions of Sri Yadav, Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondents no. 6 submitted that copy of the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been sent to the contesting respondents/petitioners on 3.1.2012 before the District Inspector of Schools and the District Inspector of Schools has referred the matter to the Joint Director of Education on 4.4.2012 and the matter is pending before the Joint Director, Regional Level Committee for examining the consequences flowing from the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that where there is inter se dispute between the rival committees of management under Section 16-A (7) of the Act of 1921, the Joint Director of Education is conferred with the power to resolve such dispute of two rival committees of management, keeping in view the actual control of its affairs. However, certain changes have been made by the Government Orders dated 19.12.2000 and 20.09.2008 and the recent position in this regard is, that on the reference of the District Inspector of Schools, it is the Regional Level Committee which gets the power to decide the dispute relating to the attestation of the signature of the Manager, including the recognition of the Committee of Management. Taking note of the aforesaid Government Orders, various cases have been decided by this Court. Reference may be given to Committee of Management of Ganga Khand Inter College, Khera Dayal Nagar, Aligarh & Anr. Vs. Taking note of the aforesaid Government Orders, various cases have been decided by this Court. Reference may be given to Committee of Management of Ganga Khand Inter College, Khera Dayal Nagar, Aligarh & Anr. Vs. Regional Joint Director of Education, Agra & Ors., (2004) 3 UPLBEC 2731 ; Munna Lal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2005 (6) AWC 5958; and Committee of Management, Sri Yadvesh Inter College & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2011 (8) ADJ 493 .Therefore, in the absence of jurisdiction the order of the District Inspector of Schools impugned in the writ petition cannot sustain and the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the same as the jurisdiction can neither be assumed nor presumed nor conferred or acquired by acquiescence of the parties. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties agreed that this appeal may be disposed of with the clarification that the Regional Level Committee while considering the grievance regarding voter list on which election prayed to be held in the year 2009 shall not be influenced or prejudiced by the observations made in the order of the learned Single Judge under appeal. However, it would be needless to emphasize that the impact of the consequences of setting aside the order dated 1.6.2007 of the District Inspector of Schools would certainly be decided by the Regional Level Committee. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of. _______________