JUDGMENT M.N. Shukla, J. - The petitioner Smt. Girja Kumari and one Smt. Asha Singh applied for the post of C. T. Grade teacher for teaching Geography, Mathematics and English in the Shyam Sunder Balika Inter College, Ballia in response to an advertisement which appeared in some local newspapers. As a result of the selection made by the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose both applicants mentioned above were selected. Smt. Asha Singh was placed at the top of the list. The petitioner secured the second position in order of merit. The petitioner, however, submitted *a representation to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools (respondent No. 1) alleging that Smt. Asha Singh was not eligible for appointment as she did not satisfy the required qualifications and hence the petitioner was entitled to be appointed to the post advertised. On this representation the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools passed the order dated 4th Dec. 1980 whereby she annulled the entire selection, inter alia, on the ground that there were certain irregularities in the procedure relating to the advertisement and the combination of subjects required for fulfilling the qualifications prescribed for the post. By an irony of fate the petitioner became the victim of her own representation. In the hope of having her rival excluded the petitioner landed herself in a strange predicament. Because of the annulment of the entire selection as per order dated 4th Dec., 1980 her own chance of appointment to the post receded. It is this order which has been impugned in this writ petition. 2. In order to attack the legality of the annulment order Sri A.N. Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the validity of the relevant provisions of law, namely, Regulation 11 occurring in Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Regulation reads, "11 (1) It shall be the duty of the Experts attending selection of head of institution or teacher to scrutinise all papers concerning selection and in particular to examine that the candidates called for interview have been rightly called as per provisions of the Act and the regulation and that no candidate has been deprived of the opportunity of interview which rightly should have gone to him. They should furnish a certificate to this effect in the proceedings of the selection as proposed in the statement in Appendix `C'. In case they feel that a candidate has been deprived of the legitimate opportunity of interview as a result of any error or omission they shall inform the Inspector with full details of the case. If the Inspector is satisfied that the proceedings of the interview have been vitiated thereby he shall declare the proceedings of the interview null and void and shall pass orders for holding of selection again in such cases. The orders of the Inspector in this regard shall he final and binding on all concerned. 2. All applications, papers and registers relating to selection shall be preserved by the Management till such period as may be prescribed by the Director and shall be furnished to the Inspector, Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Director as and when the same may be summoned." 3. The above Regulation, in fact the entire Chapter II of the Regulations as it stood earlier was substituted by Notification No. Ma-3183/XV-7-76-2 (18)-75, published in U. P. Gazette Extraordinary, dated 7th July, 1976. Consequent upon the amendment the Regulation runs as quoted above. The regulation making power is contained in Sections 9 and 15 of the Act. S. 9 confers the power on the State Government and sub-sec. (4) runs as follow :- "9(4), Whenever, in the opinion of the State Government, it is necessary or expedient to take immediate action, it may. without making any reference to the Board under the foregoing provisions, pass such order or to take such other action consistent with the provisions of this Act as it deems necessary, and in particular, may by such order modify or rescind or make any regulation in respect of any matter and shall forth with inform the board accordingly." 4. On the other hand, S. 15 of the Act confers power on the Board of High School and Intermediate Education (hereinafter referred to as the Board) for making regulation for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act generally and in particular with respect to certain items which are set out in sub-sec. (2) and need not be enumerated here. S. 2 is the definitive section and according to cl. (e) "regulation" means regulations made by the Board under this Act. 5. (2) and need not be enumerated here. S. 2 is the definitive section and according to cl. (e) "regulation" means regulations made by the Board under this Act. 5. The petitioner's argument rather technical though ingenious is that the statutory definition of `regulation' is exhaustive and a regulation which does not fall within its ambit will not be deemed to be a regulation in the eye of law. It was submitted that in these circumstances the regulations made by the State Government were ultra vires the Act. It was rightly pointed out that the amended regulations contained in Chapter II of the Regulations as they stand at present were framed by the State Government. The contention was that a regulation which exceeded the scope of the provisions of the statute itself must be struck down as ultra vires. This argument, however, completely overlooks the provisions of another statute which brings the regulations framed by the State Government also within the statutory ambit. The U. P. Secondary Education (Amendment) Act, 1975 (U. P. Act No. 26 of 1975) enacted on 18th Aug., 1975 contains the following provisions in S. 21. "21. Notwithstanding anything contained in any of the principal Act referred to in Chapters II and III it shall be lawful for the State Government to make, within one year from the commencement of this Act. regulations in respect of the matters contained in Chapter II, or as the case may be, rules in respect of the matter contained in Chapter III, and every regulation or rule so made by the State Government shall continue to remain in force. until it is duly amended or rescinded under the Principal Act as amended by this Act." 6. The above section opens with a non obstante clause and would obviously have an overriding effect and make it lawful for the State Government to make any regulation in respect of the matters, inter alia, contained in Chapter I I despite anything to the contrary contained in the principal Act. Thus, S. 21 of the amending Act 26 of 1975 enlarges the scope of the statutory provisions of the original Act with respect to the framing of regulations. Thus, S. 21 of the amending Act 26 of 1975 enlarges the scope of the statutory provisions of the original Act with respect to the framing of regulations. This large power culled from the two substantive provisions of the original and the amending Act read together destroys the limitation, if any, which, it was argued, flowed from the definition of the term `regulation' in S. 2 (e) of the Act. As a consequence of the amending Act it is manifest that the regulation making power conferred by the statute embraces within its scope regulations framed by the State Government also. 7. However, even without the aid of the amending Act we were inclined to hold that the argument was too technical to be accepted and in substance the power of making regulations could be inferred by necessary -implication as vesting in the State Government as well. In our opinion S. 9 (4) confers very wide powers on the State Government of modifying, rescinding or making any regulation in respect of any matter, whenever it considers it necessary or expedient to take immediate action. This, power of the State Government is further fortified by sub-sec. (5) of S. 9 which provides that no action taken by the State Government under sub-sec. (4) shall be called in question. Thus, the intention of the Legislature appears to have been to invest the State Government with large and coeval powers with the Board of making regulations and such regulations framed by the State Government would not be vitiated merely because the definition of the term` regulation' in the principal Act may appear to confined to regulations made by the Board. It is trite that an attempt should always be made to gather the real intention of the Legislature and unless some inference is positively repugnant to the language of the statute its real intent and substance must determine the interpretation. However, it seems no longer necessary to take recourse to these canons of interpretation because the, matter has been lifted beyond the pale of' controversy by enacting S. 21 of the Amending Act 26 of 1975. It would be evident from the dates to which we have already referred that the impugned regulation was framed after the enactment of U. P. Act No. 26 of 1975. It would be evident from the dates to which we have already referred that the impugned regulation was framed after the enactment of U. P. Act No. 26 of 1975. Thus, the argument that the said regulation exceeds the scope of the Act and is therefore, ultra vires cannot be sustained. 8. Even otherwise the argument on which the attack on the validity of regulation is founded appears to be like a double-edged sword which cuts at the very root of the petitioner's case, if Regulation 11 were struck down, the petitioner would also become ineligible for appointment to the post. The matter of selection is governed by the provisions of S. 16-E of the Act. The provisions of sub-secs. (6), (7) and (9) of S. 16-E are relevant in this regard and are reproduced below : "16-E (6) The selection committee shall prepare a list containing in order of preference the names as far as practicable of three candidates for each post found by it to be suitable for appointment and shall communicate its recommendations together with such list to the Committee of Management. (7) Subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (8) the Committee of Management shall on receipt of the recommendations of the Selection Committee under sub-sec. (6) first offer appointment to the candidate given the first preference by the Selection Committee, and on his failure to join the post, the candidate next to him in the list prepared by the Selection Committee under this section and on the failure of such candidate also, to the last candidate specified in such list. (8) .................. (9) Where no candidate approved by the Selection Committee for appointment is available a fresh selection shall be held in the manner laid down in the Section." 9. The selection of Smt. Asha Singh fell through only on the basis that the entire selection was annulled. If the selection had not been annulled, the contingency of offering the post to the petitioner would not arise because admittedly Smt. Asha Singh had secured the first place in order of merit whereas the petitioner stood second. Sub-sec. The selection of Smt. Asha Singh fell through only on the basis that the entire selection was annulled. If the selection had not been annulled, the contingency of offering the post to the petitioner would not arise because admittedly Smt. Asha Singh had secured the first place in order of merit whereas the petitioner stood second. Sub-sec. (7) of S. 16-E envisages that the first offer of the appointment will be made to the candidate to whom the first preference was given by the Selection Committee and on his or her failure to join the candidate next to him or her in the list prepared by the selection committee would be entitled to the appointment. Therefore, if the annulment itself is challenged, the possibility of the petitioner securing the appointment would cease to exist. In this context it may be noted that Smt. Asha Singh had filed a writ petition in this Court, being writ petition No. 414 of 1980, challenging the annulment of the selection made by the Selection Committee but the writ petition was rejected by an order of this Court dated 10-8-1981. Thus, this Court did not choose to interfere with the selection of the candidates made in the instant case from which it follows that the candidate who stood first would still be available for appointment. 10. No other point was pressed before us. In the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine.