ORDER K.N. Singh, J. - Ranikhet Intermediate College is an aided and recognised institution which is run and administered by the Methodist Educational Service under a Scheme of Administration approved by the Regional Director of Education. Nainital, under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. In 1971 a vacancy arose in the office of the Principal of the said institution. The management committee of the institution issued advertisement on 8-4-1971 inviting application for filling the post of Principal. A selection committee was constituted in accordance with the Act and the Regulations which submitted its recommendations to the Deputy Director of Education, Kumaon Region, Nainital. The recommendation made by the selection committee was, however, disapproved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education on 6-7-1972 and the management was directed to hold fresh selection. In June 1974 a fresh advertisement was issued and applications were invited for filling the post of Principal. A selection committee was again constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Regulations and it submitted its recommendations to the Deputy Director of Education. This time again the Deputy Director of Education by his order dated 24-8-1974 disapproved the recommendations made by the selection committee and he pointed out reasons for which the recommendations were disapproved. Thereafter the Chairman of the selection committee submitted a representation to the Deputy Director of Education. By his letter dated 4-12-1974 the Deputy Director of Education informed the Chairman of the selection committee that the representation (sic) was not satisfactory. He further directed the Chairman of the selection committee to hold fresh selection after issuing advertisement and complying with other necessary formalities. The petitioner who has been officiating on the post of Principal since 1971 and who was allowed to cross efficiency bar was not selected by the selection committee although he was a candidate for the said post. After the issue of the direction of the Deputy Director of Education directing the selection committee to hold fresh selection for the third time, the petitioner filed the present petition challenging the validity of the direction issued by the Deputy Director of Education. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Deputy Director of Education had no jurisdiction to allow the selection committee to hold selection for the third time. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Deputy Director of Education had no jurisdiction to allow the selection committee to hold selection for the third time. It is urged that under the provisions of the Act and the Rules no third selection is permissible. In order to appreciate this argument it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Regulations. Section 16-E of the Act lays down qualifications of persons who may be appointed Principal. Headmaster and teachers of recognised institutions. It further lays down the procedure required to be followed by the selection committee in making the selection. Section 16-F lays down that no person shall be appointed as a Principal. Headmaster or a teacher in a recognised institution unless he fulfils the prescribed qualifications and is recommended by the selection committee and unless approval is granted by the Deputy Director of Education in the case of Principal, and Headmaster and the District Inspector of Schools in the case of a teacher. Subsection (2) of Section 16-F lays down that the names of selected candidates in the case of appointment to the post of Principal shall be forwarded for approval to the Regional Deputy Director of Education along with statement showing the names, qualifications and other particulars as prescribed by the Regulations. Thereafter Regional Deputy Director of Education shall give his decision within two weeks on the receipt of the relevant papers failing which the approval shall be deemed to have been accorded. Sub-section (3) empowers the Deputy Director of Education to disapprove the proposal of the management for the appointment of Principal and in the case of disapproval it is open to the management to make representation against the order of disapproval within three weeks from the date of the receipt of the order of disapproval to the Director of Education. Thereafter the decision of the Director in the matter shall be final. Sub-sec. (4) provides for the procedure required to be followed after the proposal of the management is disapproved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education under sub-section (3) of Section 16-F of the Act. Thereafter the decision of the Director in the matter shall be final. Sub-sec. (4) provides for the procedure required to be followed after the proposal of the management is disapproved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education under sub-section (3) of Section 16-F of the Act. It provides that after the recommendation under sub-section (2) is disapproved and the representation, if any, made by the management is rejected by the Director of Education, the selection committee shall select and recommend another name for approval in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 16-E and 16-F of the Act. Thus sub-sub. (4) permits holding of a second selection, but it further lays down that if the second selection is again disapproved and the representation, if any made by the management against the second order of disapproval is rejected by the Director of Education, no third selection shall be held. Sub-section (4) contemplates that if the selection made at the 2nd selection is disapproved by the Deputy Director of Education and if representation of the management is rejected by the Director of Education, no further selection shall be held, instead the Director of Education is empowered to appoint any qualified person as Principal from amongst the list of candidates applying for the vacancy and if such appointment is made by the Director of Education, his order shall be final in the matter. Provisions contained in Section 16-F (2) (3) and (4) make it amply clear that the Act does not contemplate holding of a third selection and it does not confer any power on the Regional Deputy Director of Education to issue direction to the management or to the selection committee of a recognised institution to hold selection for the third time for filling the vacancy in the most of Principal. It appears that the Legislature intended that repeated selection should not be held for an indefinite period of time, instead there should be no selection after the second selection is disapproved and in order to finalise the matter, power was conferred on the Director of Education to appoint any of the persons alvine for the post of Principal, but such a person must be a qualified person. 3. 3. In the instant case there is no dispute that the second selection held by the management of the institution was disapproved by the Deputy Director of Education, Nainital, by his order dated 24-8-1974 as well as by his order dated 4-12-1974. On the admitted facts of the case it is thus clear that two selections were held for filling the post of Principal of the Institution. Ranikhet Intermediate College but on both the occasions the proposal of the management was disapproved by the Deputy Director of Education. It is further conceded that the management of the College did not make any representation either at the time of disapproval of the first selection or after the issue of orders dated 24-8-1974 and 4-12-1974. As already noted under sub-sec. (3) as well as sub-sec. (4) of S. 16-F of the Act the management had a right to make representation against the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Nainital, dated 24-8-1974 and 4-12-1974 challenging the disapproval of its proposal for the appointment of Principal. The management, however, did not make any representation, instead it considered it proper to abide by the order of disapproval. Once the management did not make representation the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education disapproving the second selection became final and thereafter no third selection could legally be held. In that situation Director of Education is invested with power to appoint a qualified person from amongst those who applied for the post. The Deputy Director of Education had no jurisdiction to direct for holding third selection. The order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 4-12-1974 issuing direction for holding third selection is without jurisdiction. 4. Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent management of the College urged that the Deputy Director of Education committed a patent error of law in disapproving the selection and the proposal made by the management for the 2nd time. He urged that Ranikhet Intermediate College is a minority institution as it is managed and controlled by the Methodist Educational Service of the Methodist Church of Southern Asia. It is Christian Institution and therefore it is entitled to protections granted to the minority institutions. He also referred to Regulation 18 of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act. The Regulations contained in Chapter II make provisions for appointment of a teacher including the Principal and Headmaster. It is Christian Institution and therefore it is entitled to protections granted to the minority institutions. He also referred to Regulation 18 of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act. The Regulations contained in Chapter II make provisions for appointment of a teacher including the Principal and Headmaster. The Regulations contained therein lay down detailed procedure which is required to be followed in making selection and forwarding the recommendations to the Regional Director of Education for his approval. Regulation 18 lays down that in the case of the institution run by religious and linguistic minorities specially for the benefit of their children, the approving authority will not normally interfere with the selection made by the Selection Committee provided the person so selected fulfils the conditions of minimum qualifications prescribed for the post and is otherwise eligible. It is urged that in view of Regulation 18 it was not open to the Regional Deputy Director of Education to disapprove the second selection as the person who was recommended by the Selection Committee possessed minimum qualifications prescribed for the post and was fully eligible for appointment to the most of Principal. It is further urged that the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education disapproving the managements proposal was illegal therefore the directions issued by him for holding third, selection was ineffective, hence the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. With respect, I am unable to accept this argument. In the first place it is not open to the respondent management to challenge the validity or legality of the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Nainital, disapproving the managements proposal for appointment of Principal. As already noted under the Act the management of the College had a right to make representation against the order of disapproval before the Director of Education but the management did not do so. As already noted under the Act the management of the College had a right to make representation against the order of disapproval before the Director of Education but the management did not do so. The averments contained in paragraph 35 of the counter-affidavit filed by Civil T. Richards on behalf of the respondent management assert that the validity of the direction issued by Deputy Director of Education for constituting third Selection Committee for the appointment of the Principal of the College cannot be challenged by the petitioner, if at all it could be challenged by the Managing Committee of the Institution but it did not do so and decided to abide by the orders of the Deputy Director of Education irrespective of its merits. The averments contained in paragraph 35 therefore clearly show that the respondent management of the College took decision to abide by the orders of the Deputy Director of Education disapproving the second selection. The respondent management submitted to the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, therefore it is not open to the management to challenge validity of the order of the Deputy Director of Education in the present proceedings. Further the petitioner is not challenging the validity of the order of disapproval in the present proceedings, instead he is challenging validity of the direction issued by the Deputy Director of Education for holding a third selection. The petitioner is aggrieved by the holding of the third Selection Committee and he has no grievance against the order of disapproval. 5. Regulation 18. no doubt contains provision for the guidance of the Deputy Director of Education and the District Inspector of Schools which required that in considering the question of approval normally. They should not interfere with the selection made by the Selection Committee of a minority institution. The use of the expression "normally" is significant. It does not take away the power of disapproval: it directs the approving authority not to interfere with the selection made by the Selection Committee as a matter of routine. It merely contemplates that the approving authority should not normally interfere with the selection made by the minority institution provided the selected candidate fulfils the minimum qualifications and is eligible for appointment to the post of Principal. Regulation 18 is a directory provision which does not restrict the powers of the approving authority. It merely contemplates that the approving authority should not normally interfere with the selection made by the minority institution provided the selected candidate fulfils the minimum qualifications and is eligible for appointment to the post of Principal. Regulation 18 is a directory provision which does not restrict the powers of the approving authority. But even assuming that the Deputy Director of Education failed to comply with the provisions contained in Regulation 18, it is not open to the respondent management to challenge the validity of the order of disapproval in the present proceedings. The management had opportunity to challenge the same before the Director of Education or before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, but it did not do so, instead it preferred to abide by that decision. In the circumstances the respondent management is not entitled to question the same in the present proceedings. 6. In view of the above discussion I hold that the Deputy Director of Education had no jurisdiction to direct the management to constitute a third selection committee and hold selection for the appointment of Principal. The Director of Education is fully empowered to appoint a suitable qualified person to the post of Principal from amongst the list of persons absolving for the said post. I am sure he will keep the interest of the institution also in his mind in making the appointment. 7. In the result I allow the petition and quash the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 4-12-1974 insofar as it directs the respondent management to hold a third selection for the appointment to the post of Principal of Ranikhet Intermediate College. The Director of Education is directed to make the appointment in pursuance of Section 16-F (4) of the Act and in the light of observations made in the judgment. Parties shall bear their own costs.