JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Dr. Ramji Dwivedi challenging the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, dated 1st May, 1981 intimating the Manager of the Committee of Management of Shrinath Intermediate College, Garhmalpur Sahulie, district Ballia that as the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Principal had been made in contravention of the Government order No. 1701 /15-7- FI-1 (27)/81 dated 7-4-81, his appointment on the said post was invalid. 2. The facts as stated in the writ petition are these. On 18th May, 1980, advertisement was made in Hindi Daily Bhirgu Chetna inviting applications for appointment on the post of Principal of Shrinath Intermediate College, Garhmalpur Sahulayee, district Ballia by the Manager of the Committee of Management of the aforesaid College. In pursuance of this advertisement, the petitioner filed an application seeking his appointment on the said post. The interview of the petitioner was held on the 12th of April, 1981 by the Selection Committee which consisted of two experts - Sri Ram Dularey Tripathi, Principal, Nagrik Degree College, Jaunpur and Dr. Gauri Shanker Misra, Principal, Marihaun Degree College, Marihaun, district Jaunpur. The Committee selected the petitioner, in pursuance of which on 27-4-1981 an appointment letter was issued by the Manager to the petitioner. The information about his appointment was sent to the District Inspector of Schools who wrote the letter dated 1st May, 1981 intimating the Manager that as there was a prohibition imposed by the State Government on making appointments of teachers under an order which may be described as the Radiogram, there was no question of making appointment of the petitioner as Principal. 3. Challenging the aforesaid Radiogram, the petitioner's learned counsel made two submissions before us. The first was that the management had been conferred right to make appointments under the Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. The said right could not be taken away by the State Government by issuing a direction prohibiting the Management to make appointments. Such a direction contained in the Radiogram amounted to breach of the right conferred on the Management. The second submission was that there was no power under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) under which such a prohibition could be imposed, hence the Radiogram was invalid. 4. Such a direction contained in the Radiogram amounted to breach of the right conferred on the Management. The second submission was that there was no power under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) under which such a prohibition could be imposed, hence the Radiogram was invalid. 4. The writ petition had been contested by respondent 5 which is the Committee of Management of Shrinath Intermediate College as well as by the State Government. In the affidavit of Phuldeo Pande filed on behalf of the Committee of Management, the allegation made by the petitioner that he had been duly selected by the Selection Committee on the 12th of Apr. 1981, has been denied as false. The Selection Committee, according to this counter affidavit, did not meet on the 12th of April, 1981 and therefore, there was no question of making the selection of the petitioner on the said date. 5. Defending the Radiogram of the State Government issued on 7th Apr. 1981, counsel urged that the same had been issued under Sub-section (4) of Section 9 of the Act, hence was valid. 6. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties. We will take up the first argument advanced before us by the learned counsel. The same being that the Committee of Management has unfettered right to make appointment whenever it so desires and by putting an embargo in the exercise of that right, the State Government has contravened the provisions of the Act. We have gone through the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. The Act regulated the procedure in accordance with which appointment of teachers could be made. The Act conferred power on the Educational Authorities in the matter of appointments, termination, dismissal, removal and suspension of teachers. By the impugned Radiogram, the State Government prohibited the Management from making appointments for a short period. Thus, this Radiogram temporarily stopped the Management from making appointments. This temporary suspension cannot be considered as depriving or curtailing the rights of the Management. 7. The object of issuing the Radiogram was to enable the State Government to give effect to the changes which were intended to be made in the making of appointments of teachers. Thus, this Radiogram temporarily stopped the Management from making appointments. This temporary suspension cannot be considered as depriving or curtailing the rights of the Management. 7. The object of issuing the Radiogram was to enable the State Government to give effect to the changes which were intended to be made in the making of appointments of teachers. The experience had been that the provisions made in the Act were inadequate and insufficient to stop the malpractice in the appointment of teachers, as a result of which the object with which the amendment of the Intermediate Education Act regulating the appointments was made could not be achieved. The State in a democratic set up is widely interested in securing a healthy system of imparting education for its coming generation or citizens. For the said purpose, the State Government issued the Radiogram so that a better method of appointment of teachers could be provided for by bringing a new Act. With this and in view in July, 1981, the Government promulgated the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Ordinance, 1981 (U.P. Ordinance No. 8 of 1981). This brought about a wholesome change in the Scheme of the Act relating to the appointment of teachers. The main purpose of the Act was to establish a Commission to be called the "U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission". The Commission is to consist of a Chairman and not less than six members. These members have to be taken from various sources enumerated in Section 4 of the Ordinance. The prohibition of Management to make appointments in accordance with the old procedure did not amount to deprivation of any right, attracting the protection granted by Art. 19 of the Constitution. 8. Moreover, the Intermediate Colleges and Schools are closed by the middle of May of every year. Home Examinations and those conducted by the Board generally take place in Uttar Pradesh in the months of March, April and May of each year. In the month of April, there is practically nothing much left for teaching. The State Government had advisedly issued a Radiogram at a time which affected all those concerned the least. Generally no appointments of teachers are made in April or May. Seeing in this background one would find that no right of the Management had been curtailed. The submission of the petitioners learned counsel made to the contrary is devoid of substance. The State Government had advisedly issued a Radiogram at a time which affected all those concerned the least. Generally no appointments of teachers are made in April or May. Seeing in this background one would find that no right of the Management had been curtailed. The submission of the petitioners learned counsel made to the contrary is devoid of substance. 9. The second argument of the petitioners learned counsel was that the Executive cannot go against the provisions of the Constitution or of any law. The Radiogram being against the Act, the same is liable to be declared as invalid. In that connection, counsel urged that as the Radiogram was invalid, the appointment of the petitioner made, had to be recognised by the Educational Authorities and could not be ignored or treated to be invalid on the basis of the Radiogram. 10. The Executive powers of the State are conterminous with the legislative power of the State Legislature. These powers are co-extensive with the legislative power of the State Legislature. It does not, however, mean that in order to enable the State Government, to function in respect of any matter, there must be a law or legislative order in existence relating to that subject (See State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Singh, AIR 1967 SC 1170 ). It may also not be correct that the powers of the State are limited for carrying out the Act made by the State Legislature. The State Legislature can in exercise of its executive powers pass such orders as may be necessary for the purpose of administration. As stated above, however, the prohibition on the State Government is that such an action should not either violate the Constitution or the provisions of the Act made by the Legislature. 11. In Ram Jawaya v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549 , the Supreme Court was required to consider this aspect of the matter. It found that under Article 162 of the Constitution the Executive Authority of the State is exclusive in respect of the matters enumerated in List II of Seventh Schedule. The Supreme Court held further (at p. 556) : "It can also, when so empowered, exercise judicial functions in a limited way. The executive Government, however, can never go against the provisions of the Constitution or of any law. The Supreme Court held further (at p. 556) : "It can also, when so empowered, exercise judicial functions in a limited way. The executive Government, however, can never go against the provisions of the Constitution or of any law. This is clear from the provisions of Article 154 of the Constitution but, as we have already stated, it does not follow from this that in order to enable the executive to function there must be a law already in existence and that the powers of the executive are limited merely to the carrying out of these laws. The limits within which the executive Government can function under the Indian Constitution can be asertained without much difficulty by reference to the form of the executive which our Constitution has set up. Our Constitution, though federal in its structure, is modelled on the British parliamentary system where the executive is deemed to have the primary responsibility for the formulation of governmental policy and its transmission into law though the condition precedent to the exercise of this responsibility is its retaining the confidence of the legislative branch of the State. The executive function comprises both the determination of the policy as well as carrying it into execution. This evidently includes the initiation of legislation, the maintenance of order, the promotion of social and economic welfare, the direction of foreign policy, in fact the carrying on or supervision of the general administration of the State." 12. There is another aspect of the matter. Proviso to Cl. (1) of Art. 73 clearly lays down that the executive authority in regard to matters the Concurrent List shall be ordinarily left to the States. The effect of this proviso is that in the concurrent sphere the Union will not have executive power, unless (i) the Constitution itself or (ii) a law made by Parliament, expressly provides to that effect. The Radiogram being in respect of Education is relatable to matters covered by Entry 25 of the Concurrent List. Thus, the impugned radiogram can be held to be justified. 13. Sri S. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the Radiogram could be issued by the State Government only, when there would have been no regulatory provision in the Act laying down the procedure about the appointment. But, since there was a procedure provided for and the Act was not silent, the radiogram issued was invalid. 13. Sri S. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the Radiogram could be issued by the State Government only, when there would have been no regulatory provision in the Act laying down the procedure about the appointment. But, since there was a procedure provided for and the Act was not silent, the radiogram issued was invalid. In that connection he also submitted that the State Government could issue administrative directions to fill up the gap that has been left by the State Legislature. But, where, as here, there was an Act laying down the procedure for the appointment of the petitioner, there was no power in the State to issue the radiogram. We have held above that the radiogram had been issued with a view to bring about a change in the whole system of making recruitment. In order to give effect to the intended change, this Radiogram was issued. By issuing the Radiogram the State Government did not go against the provisions of the Act. 14. In M/s. Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. ( AIR 1982 SC 33 ), the Supreme Court was called upon to consider the validity of a teleprinter message from U.P. Secretariate in the nature of the executive instructions of the State Government. The Supreme Court found that (at p. 41) : "The executive power of modern State is not capable of any precise definition. In Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. State of Punjab, (1955) 2 SCR 225 : ( AIR 1955 SC 549 ), Mukherjee, C. J., dealt with the scope of Articles 73 and 162 of the Constitution. The learned Chief Justice observed that neither of the two Articles contain any definition as to what the executive function is or give an exhaustive enumeration of the activities which would legitimately come within its scope. It was observed: "ordinarily the executive power connotes the residue of governmental functions that remain after legislative and judicial functions are taken away". It is neither necessary nor possible to give an exhaustive enumeration of the kinds and categories of executive functions which may comprise both the formulation of the policy as well as its execution. In other words, the State in exercise of its executive power is charged with the duty and the responsibility of carrying on the general administration of the State. In other words, the State in exercise of its executive power is charged with the duty and the responsibility of carrying on the general administration of the State. So long as the State Government does not go against the provisions of the Constitution or any law, the width and amplitude of its executive power cannot be circumscribed. If there is no enactment covering a particular aspect, certainly the Government can carry on the administration by issuing administrative directions or instructions, until the legislature makes a law in that behalf. Otherwise, the administration would come to a standstill." 15. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the teleprinter issued by the State Government was justified under Article 162 of the Constitution. We derive considerable support from the decision of the Supreme Court and find that the Radiogram dated 7th April, 1981 was in the nature of executive instructions issued by the State Government under its undoubted powers under Art. 162 of the Constitution. It is not correct to say that the said Radiogram was against the provisions of the Act as nothing contained in it was adverse or contrary to the Act. 16. The petitioner relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in I. N. Saksena v. State of Madhya Pradesh { AIR 1967 SC 1264 ); The District Registrar Palghat v. Municipal Board Koyyaquity ( AIR 1979 SC 1060 ) : (1979 Lab I C 803); The Chief Settlement Commr. v. Om Prakash ( AIR 1969 SC 33 ), Commr. of Police v. Gobardhan Das Bhanji ( AIR 1952 SC 16 ). There can be no quarrel with the propositions laid down in these cases. In these cases what is accepted is that the State Government would be competent to issue administrative instructions which are not inconsistent with the statutory provisions already enacted. Such is not the position in the present case. The radiogram issued does not contravene any of the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act or Regulations framed thereunder. 17. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents justified the radiogram under S. 9(4) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act. Such is not the position in the present case. The radiogram issued does not contravene any of the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act or Regulations framed thereunder. 17. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents justified the radiogram under S. 9(4) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act. This sub-section (4) reads as under: "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 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 forthwith inform the Board accordingly." 18. Under the aforesaid provision, the power has been conferred upon the State Government to issue such directions as it may think expedient or necessary so to do. By the radiogram the State Government has issued a direction for stopping all appointments for a short while. This action was eminent as a new procedure for appointment was under contemplation. The radiogram could, therefore, in our opinion, be saved on the basis of sub-section (4) of S. 9. 19. Counsel for the petitioner, however, urged that the power conferred by subsection (4) of Section 9 on the State Government could not be read in isolation. If read, according to him, along with subsections (1) to (3) of Section 9, it would be found that sub-section (4) has a limited scope and can apply only to those matters regarding which the Board of Intermediate Education has been conferred powers by Section 7. The submission does not appeal to us. The language of sub-section (4) of Section 9 is ambiguous and confers wide powers on the State Government. The power conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 9 cannot be confined to the matters dealt with in Section 7 alone. S. 9(4) could be utilised by the State Government for the purpose for which it has been done in the present case. 20. Counsel for the petitioner urged that as the radiogram issued by the State Government was in conflict with the provision of the Act and the Regulations framed under it relating to appointment of teachers, the radiogram could not be issued under the aforesaid provision. We do not find any merit in this submission. 20. Counsel for the petitioner urged that as the radiogram issued by the State Government was in conflict with the provision of the Act and the Regulations framed under it relating to appointment of teachers, the radiogram could not be issued under the aforesaid provision. We do not find any merit in this submission. In order to show the conflict, it must be shown that the two contained inconsistent or irreconcilable provisions so that the two could not stand together. There is no collision between the two provisions. By the radiogram, only a short gap arrangement has been made by directing the management not to make appointments. It is to be remembered that although the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder provide a wholesome scheme for making of appointments, but there is no time limit within which a vacancy must be filled up. That being so, the radiogram could not be said to be in conflict with the provisions of the Act. 21. In Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Kumar v. State of U.P. ( AIR 1982 SC 33 ) (supra), the State Government had issued a teleprinter message prohibiting the issuance of licences for a short time. The Supreme Court upheld the right of the State Government and found it to be not in conflict with the Essential Commodities Act. 22. In Civil Misc. Writ No. 8223 of 1979, Sri Krishna Pal Singh v. State of U.P., decided on 31st March, 1981, a Division Bench upheld the Government order dated 15-7-1978 prescribing reservation in favour of members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and backward class in the service of the private educational institutions recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. It found that the Government Order was referable to section 9(4) of the Act and, as such, the provisions made for reservation in the said Government Order had statutory character. We find support from the view taken in the aforesaid decision. 23. For the reasons given above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The interim stay order dated 20-5-1981 stands vacated.