ORDER 1. The petitioner claims to be the Manager of Shri Ganesh Vidyalaya Inter College. The Committee of Management passed a resolution dated 29-10-84 annex. 9 directing that the joint salary account maintained under the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (for short, the 1971 Act) shall in future be operated by the Assistant Manager Sri Virendra Mohan Tripathi instead of by the Manager on behalf of the Committee of Management. A Copy of this resolution was sent to the District Inspector of Schools (for short. D.I.O.S.). The D.I.O.S. in pursuance of this resolution intimated the bank on 31-10-84, vide annex. 8, that the said account will be operated by Sri Tripathi instead of by the petitioner. Thereafter the D.I.O.S. sent a further communication to the bank on 7-11- 84 stating that all the accounts Nos. 404, 405, 406, 407, 230, 332 and 884 of the institution shall be operated by Sri Tripathi instead of by the petitioner. The D.I.O.S. also sent attested specimen signatures of Sri Tripathi to the bank. Aggrieved by these decisions the petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. His grievance is that under the scheme of administration the power to operate the accounts vests in the petitioner as Manager. The Manager was elected by the general body and he did not hold the office at the pleasure of the Committee of Management. The committee had, therefore, no right to take away his powers as Manager. The D.I.O.S. also has no power to pass an order approving the action of the Committee of Management to the extent it was contrary to the provisions of the scheme of administration framed under S. 16-A of the Intermediate Education Act. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. So far as S. 16-A is concerned it clearly lays down that the Committee of Management shall be vested with the authority to manager and conduct the affairs of the institution. There is no doubt that it has to frame a scheme of administration which has to be approved by the Director of Education. 3. So far as S. 16-A is concerned it clearly lays down that the Committee of Management shall be vested with the authority to manager and conduct the affairs of the institution. There is no doubt that it has to frame a scheme of administration which has to be approved by the Director of Education. But as held by a Full Bench of this Court in Aley Ahmad Abadi v. D.I.O.S., AIR 1977 All 539 (para 19) the scheme cannot be regarded as a piece of subordinate legislation like the Rules, Regulations, Statutes and Ordinances, which an Act empowers the Government or the statutory bodies under the Act to make or frame. The writ petition would not therefore lie merely for enforcing the scheme of administration, though the petitioner may seek his remedy through a civil suit as against the Committee. 4. We are, therefore, concerned only with the legality of the action of the D.I.O.S. Section 5 of 1971 Act aforesaid provides that a separate account should be opened for the purposes of disbursement of salaries and that the said account shall be operated jointly by a representative of the management and by the D.I.O.S. or his representative. It does not speak anywhere of the manager as such, nor does it provide that the representative of the Committee shall be the Manager. We have already held above that the scheme of administration is not statutory. It cannot be indirectly enforced through a writ petition be contending that the D.I.O.S. should not have accepted any one other than the Manager as the representative of the institution. The biter of the D.I.O.S. issued to the bank on 31-10- 84 annex. 8 cannot therefore be successfully assailed. However, so far as his other letter dated 7-11-84 annex. 10 is concerned, if it relates to any account other than salary account maintained under 1971 Act then the same would not be binding on the bank. We are not aware of any communications that the management might have sent to the bank, nor it is necessary for us to consider the effect of such communication. As stated-above, the matter is between the petitioner and the Committee of Management which can conceivably he raised through a civil suit. 5. With these observations the writ petition is dismissed in limine.