Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5, who appeared through caveat, stated that he did not propose to file any counter-affidavit.

3. Petitioners on the one hand and respondents No. 4 and 5 on the other hand are rival claimants to the Management of Arya Kanya Pathshala Inter College, Kalpi, Jalaun. Serious dispute between the two groups started after insertion of a clause in the bye-laws of the society providing that respondent No. 5-Akhil Jaitley would be life time Secretary/Manager. The validity of the said clause is said to be sub-judice in a pending suit, in which temporary injunction order is also stated to be continuing.

4. Learned Counsel for both the parties categorically stated that Executive Body of the society and Committee of Management of the College is same with the only difference that some of the members of teaching staff are also ex-officio members of Committee of Management.

5. In this writ petition absolutely no decision on any of the above contentious issues or correctness of the points, on which there is consensus among both the parties, is required to be given, as it is not the scope of this writ petition.

6. Petitioners claimed that the election of Executive Body/Committee of Management took place on 1.6.2006, in which petitioner No. 2 was elected as Manager and papers of the said election were forwarded to the D.I.O.S. and Regional Level Committee, constituted under G.O. dated 19.12.2000, approved the signatures of petitioner No. 2 as manager on 19.6.2000 and were attested on 20.6.2006. The further case of the petitioners is that on 14.8.2006 respondents No. 4 & 5 asserted that they had also held elections on 4.6.2006, in which respondent No. 5 was elected as Secretary and respondent No. 4 as President. Learned Counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 5 has contended that much before 19.6.2006 papers, pertaining to elections held by the respondents, had been sent to the Regional Committee. This assertion is very seriously disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners until 19.6.2006, no papers regarding rival election were before the Regional Committee.

7. On the basis of the claim made by contesting respondents, Regional Committee proposed to decide the dispute under Section 16-A(7) of Intermediate Education Act. Thereafter, writ petition was filed in this Court being writ petition No. 3970 of 2007, which was finally disposed of on 12.2.2007, copy of the judgment is Annexure-17 to the writ petition. Certain directions were given in the said judgment. Petitioners were required to file their objections, respondents No. 4 and 5 were directed to file their reply, both the parties were directed to appear before Joint Director, Secondary Education, Jhansi on 12.3.2007. Joint Director was directed first to hear the preliminary objection with regard to the jurisdiction and decide the same by reasoned order. In the end, it was directed after decision on the preliminary objection, the case shall be decided on merit. In pursuance of the said order, after exchange of objections and counter objections, Joint Director decide the preliminary objections through order dated 17.3.2007. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition. Through the said order, it was held that there was a dispute among rival claimants to the Management of College in question which required decision. The hearing on merit is yet to take place before Joint Director.

8. The main argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that until 19/20th June, 2007, there was no claim of any rival election by the contesting respondents before Joint Director, hence signatures of petitioner No. 2 as Manager were attested and thereafter no such dispute can be raised under Section 16-A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act.

9. I do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel. Prior to the G.O. dated 19.