JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C.J. - This writ petition is directed against an order dated 23rd November, 1981 passed by the Regional Inspectress of Girls School recognising Om Prakash Gupta as Manager of Vedic Kanya Inter College, Dadri in Ghaziabad. This in effect divested Chiranji Lal from he pre-existing position by which he had been recognised as Manager. So Chiranji Lal has bled the present writ petition. 2. It appears that at the annual meeting held on 3rd June, 1979 Chiranji Lal was elected as the Manager and Harish Chandra as President of the Society. Later on it appears that these two gentlemen fell out. At the alleged meeting held on 22nd May, 1989 the President Harish Chandra was removed. Subsequently at a meeting held on 11th June. 1980, the Manager was sacked. Both the Manager and the President approached the Inspectress for recognition of the validity of the meetings convened and held by them. On 28th July, 1980 the Inspectress passed an order upholding the removal of the Manager and recognising his successor. Om Prakash Gupta to be the Manager of the College. Aggrieved, Chiranji Lal filed a writ petition in this Court which was, however, dismissed on September 17, 1980. Cairanji Lal went up to the Supreme Court which by an order of December 3, 1980, dismissed the Special Leave Petition and made an observation that the Inspectress should decide the matter again by a reasoned order after hearing the parties. 3. The Inspectress by an order of January 7, 1981 decided the matter again. She reached the same conclusion as before, namely, that the removal of Cairanji Lal from the post of Manager at the meeting held on 11th June, 1980, was valid. Chiranji Lal again challenged this order by way of a writ petition in this Court. This Court by its judgment dated 22nd October, 1981 quashed the order of the Inspectress and remanded the matter back to her for a fresh decision. It took the view that the inspectress had not applied her mind to the relevant provisions and the relevant controversies. She was directed to dispose of the disputes by a fresh reasoned order. The matter went back to the Inspectress who decided the matter again by an order passed oh 23rd November 1981. This order is the subject-matter of the present writ petition. 4. She was directed to dispose of the disputes by a fresh reasoned order. The matter went back to the Inspectress who decided the matter again by an order passed oh 23rd November 1981. This order is the subject-matter of the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had on 17th August, 1981 filed an application in this Court praying for crawing up contempt proceedings against the Inspectress for disobeying the interim orders passed by this Court. The contempt proceedings are still pending. Because of the pendency of the contempt proceedings the Inspectress will be presumed to be biased against the petitioners and hence she was disqualified for deciding the dispute between the parties. On that ground her order should be set aside and the matter should be sent back for decision to some other Inpectress of Girls Schools. We are, however, not impressed by this submission. The contempt application was filed on August 17, 1981. The High Court on the earlier occasion decided the writ petition on 22nd October, 1981. It passed the following order : - "In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of RIGS dated 7th January, 1981 is quashed. The RIGS is directed to reconsider the various disputes raised between the parties and pass a reasoned order as directed by the Supreme Court keeping in view the of observations made in this judgment. Parties shall bear their own costs." If the petitioners were really serious about their charge of bias against the Inspectress, they should have raised the point before the High Court so that the High Court may have made an order that the matter be decided by some other person. But nothing of the kind was done. In view of the High Courts order, there was no option for the Inspectress but to decide the matter again. Further, the petitioners have alleged that they brought case fact of pendency of the contempt application to the notice of the Inspectress and prayed that she may not decided the matter. The Inspectress in her counter-affidavit has denied all this. She has stated that no body ever made any prayer that she should not decide the matter. In this situation, we are unable to hold that the Inspectress commuted any error of law in proceeding to decide the matter. The Inspectress in her counter-affidavit has denied all this. She has stated that no body ever made any prayer that she should not decide the matter. In this situation, we are unable to hold that the Inspectress commuted any error of law in proceeding to decide the matter. We are also unable to hold that simply because the petitioners had filed an application for contempt, the Inspecteess will be deemed to be prejudiced against the petitioners so as to disqualify her from deciding the dispute between the parties. 5. It was also submitted that in view of the amendment made in Section 16-A (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, the Inspectress had no jurisdiction to decide the matter because under that provision the jurisdiction has been conferred on the Deputy Director of Education. The change of jurisdiction has been brought about by introduction of sub section (7) by U.P. Act No. 1 of 1981 which came into force on 11th February, 1981. The impugned order was initially passed by the Inspectress on 7th January, 1981. the High Court quashed that order and sent the matter back to the Inspectress of Girls Schools In view of the High Courts order, the amendment in Section 16-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act will not affect the matter. The High Courts order dated 22nd October, 1981 has become final between the parties and that will have its force no matter the provisions may have been changed in the meanwhile. On this ground it cannot be said that the Inspectress had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. 6. Learned counsel then submitted that the order was wrong on the merits. We, however, did not proceed to hear the learned counsel on this submission. In our opinion the consistent view of this Court has been that recognition accorded by the Inspectress is for the purpose of day-to-day work of the institution. It is subject to a title suit being filed by the aggrieved party in a regular Civil Court. (See Jaswant Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, 1980 ALJ 174 : 1980 UPLBEC 43; Committee of Management, Inter College, Nonapur v. District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur, 1979 ALJ 33 and Committee of Management, Nonapur Inter College, Kanpur v The District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur, 1980 UPLBEC 209. It is open to the petitioners to go and file a civil suit. 7. It is open to the petitioners to go and file a civil suit. 7. We find no merit in this petition which accordingly dismissed with costs.