JUDGMENT K.C. AGRAWAL, J. 1. THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the Committee of Management, Chacha Nehru Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Majhwan, Kanpur for quashing the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, dated 16th January, 1981. 2. THE facts relevant are these: That Chacha Nehru Uchchatar Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Majhwan, Kanpur is a recognized institution. It is governed by the U. P. Intermediate Education Act and Regulations framed thereunder. There was a Scheme of Administration of the aforesaid School duly approved under section 16-A of the aforesaid Act. A vacancy for the post of Principal in the aforesaid institution occurred. A Selection Committee, as was required by Regulation 17 of Chapter II of the Act, was constituted. The Selection Committee consisted of the two experts nominated by the Deputy Director of Education and two representatives of the Committee of Management. Satya Narain Tiwari respondent no. 2, was one of the candidates, who was interviewed by the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee could not recommend the name of the selected candidates unanimously. On 25-1-1980, the Committee of Management passed the resolution that it did not agree with the recommendations of the Selection Committee which has selected Satya Narain Tiwari, respondent no. 2. Consequently, the Committee of Management, under section 16-E (8) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, referred the matter together with the reasons of such disagreement to the Regional Deputy Director of Education. The Regional Deputy Director on 16th January, 1981 directed the Committee of Management to appoint Satya Narain Tiwari, respondent no. 2, as the Principal. The order of the Deputy Director was not implemented. 3. THE Committee of Management filed the present writ petition on 5-2-1981 challenging its validity. On the stay application, this Court on 5-2-1981 passed the following: "Issue notice. Until further orders, the operation of the order of the Deputy-Director of Education IV Region, Allahabad dated 16th January, 1981, shall remain suspended." 4. RESPONDENT no. 2 put in appearance and contested the writ petition as well as the stay application. The stay order was vacated on 11-8-1981. The petitioner moved an application for amendment of the writ petition on March 31, 1987, raising some new points which had not been taken earlier. The petitioner alleged that after 1st May, 1981, the appointment of respondent no. 2 put in appearance and contested the writ petition as well as the stay application. The stay order was vacated on 11-8-1981. The petitioner moved an application for amendment of the writ petition on March 31, 1987, raising some new points which had not been taken earlier. The petitioner alleged that after 1st May, 1981, the appointment of respondent no. 2 made in pursuance of the order of the Regional Deputy Director being in contravention of the directions issued by the State Government dated 7th April, 1981 was invalid and, as such, could not be implemented. Consequently, it was argued that Satya Narain Tiwari, respondent no. 2, could not be appointed as Principal of Chacha Nehru Madhyamik Vidyalaya despite his selection. 5. IT appears that the State Government was since contemplating to bring about a change in the mode, method and power of appointment of teaching staff in non-Govt. aided Schools, accordingly, the Secretary to Government of Education department issued an order dated April 7, 1981 and communicated it by a Radiogram to various authorities. IT reads as under:- "From Secy. to Govt. of U. P. Education Department G. O. No. 1701/15- 7-F1-1 (27)/81 dated 1-4-81. Stop all fresh selections and appointments of Principal, Headmasters and teachers including recruitment by promotion in all non- Govt. aided secondary Schools except minority institutions pending further orders. District Inspectors to ensure non-drawal of pay of teachers appointed after this date. Detailed instructions follow." 6. PURSUANT to the Radiogram, all the appointments were stopped. The validity of this Radiogram was challenged in a writ petition before this Court, reported in Ramji Dwivedi v. State of U. P., 1982 Ed. Cases 69. The writ petition was dismissed holding that the State Government had the power under section 9 (4) of the Intermediate Education Act to issue the order dated April 7, 1981 conveyed by the Radiogram, stopping of fresh selection, appointment of Principals etc. in all non-Govt. aided Schools. Against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, appeal filed before the Supreme Court was dismissed, which decision is reported in Dr. Ramji Dwivedi v. Si ate of U. P., 1983 Ed. Cases 114. The Supreme Court held: "The situation is that the power of appointment conferred by Regulation on Committees of Management of all non-Govt. aided Schools was withdrawn or suspended. The Committee of Management had no power to make appointments. 7. Ramji Dwivedi v. Si ate of U. P., 1983 Ed. Cases 114. The Supreme Court held: "The situation is that the power of appointment conferred by Regulation on Committees of Management of all non-Govt. aided Schools was withdrawn or suspended. The Committee of Management had no power to make appointments. 7. RELYING on the Radiogram and the decisions referred to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that as the Radiogram dated 7th April, 1981 had been communicated by the District Magistrate on 1st May, 1981, after communication of that letter, the Committee of Management ceased to have power to make appointments. We are unable to find substance in the contention of the petitioner and to apply the Radiogram laid down in the two cases cited above to the facts of the present case. We have already noticed that Selection Committee under Chapter II Regulations 17 and 18 had been constituted much before the enforcement of the Radiogram. The Regional Deputy Director of Education also had in exercise of the statutory provision conferred by Section 16-E (8) selected respondent no. 2, Satya Narain Tiwari. After selection by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, the only thing left was the ministerial act of issuing the appointment letter to respondent no. 2. Sub-section 8) of Section 16-E provides that in the case of appointment to the post of Head of the institution, his decision shall be final. The decision of the Regional Deputy Director of Education under sub-section (8) of Section 16-E being final, nothing was required to be done excepting, as stated above, to issue a formal communication to the person selected for taking over the charge. That appears to be the requirement of Chapter II Rule 18 as well in spirit and substance. 8. THE intention of the Radiogram, as noted above, was to provide for a new Scheme of recruitment of teachers and heads of the institutions by bringing about a change in the mode, method and power of appointment. But it could not be and was not that even where appointments have been finalised in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act and Rules framed thereunder that those appointments would be undone and set aside. But it could not be and was not that even where appointments have been finalised in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act and Rules framed thereunder that those appointments would be undone and set aside. THE stage of appointment, in the instant case, was that Selection Committee with two experts nominated by the Deputy Director of Education had met and passed its resolution because the members did not agree that the matter went to the Regional Deputy Director of Education under Section 16-E (8) for finalisation. THE proceedings under the aforesaid provision was finalised. After finalisation, the Committee of Management had no power to refuse to issue the appointment letter as directed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education. THE Committee of Management could challenge the order of the Regional Deputy Director by means of a writ but so long as that order has not been set aside, it is binding. It came into existence physically and in reality on the date when the order under Section 16-E (8) was passed. But by no fiction its existence could be postponed. It, therefore, appears to us that the Radiogram dated 7th April, 1981 did not come in the way of respondent no. 2. In Ramji Dwivedi v. State of U. P. (Supra), the Selection Committee selected Ramji Dwivedi unanimously for the post of Principal. Pursuant to this decision of the Selection Committee, the Committee of Management issued appointment letter to the petitioner vide its resolution dated April 19, 1981. This resolution since had been passed after the Radiogram dated 7th April, 1981, it was held by the High Court that the appointment of the appellant was not valid. Neither the Management of the College had any power to set up a selection committee nor the Selection Committee had any power to make appointments. It may further be noted that in that case the meeting of the Selection Committee was held on 12th April, 1981. Consequently, on these facts, the Supreme Court found that the appointment of Ramji Dwivedi was invalid being in teeth of the Radiogram. The facts of our case are altogether different. The Selection Committee had met sometime in May 1980 and as there was a difference, the matter was sent to the Regional Deputy Director of Education under Section 16-E (8). Consequently, on these facts, the Supreme Court found that the appointment of Ramji Dwivedi was invalid being in teeth of the Radiogram. The facts of our case are altogether different. The Selection Committee had met sometime in May 1980 and as there was a difference, the matter was sent to the Regional Deputy Director of Education under Section 16-E (8). The Regional Deputy Director had also passed an order which has been finalised under Section 16-E (8) on 16-1-1981 much before the coming into force of the Radiogram. 9. RELIANCE was placed by the petitioner's counsel, Sri M. S. Negi, on a judgment of this Court reported in Km. Prabha Sharma v. District Judge, 1982 Ed. Cases 241. The facts of this case are that ore V. M. Singh of the College had retired on 30th June, 1980, and the vacancy created on his retirement was advertised on 1st July, 1980. The Selection Committee met on 8th July, 1980 and it prepared a list showing the names of Smt. Deobala Jain, Smt. Chandra Goel and Smt. Shanti Bhatnagar as candidates selected in order of merit for filling the post of Principal in the College. While forwarding the said list, the Committee specified that in case Smt. Deobala Jain did not join, Smt. Chandra Goel could be appointed as Principal of the College. The recommendation of the Selection Committee were considered by the Committee of Management on 16th February, 1980 which resolved to accept the same. On 11-2-1981 a letter of appointment was issued to Smt. Deobala Jain. It was extended from time to time and ultimately on 30th April, 1981 she refused to join the said post. A Radiogram from the State Government was received by the District Inspector of Schools on 7th April, 1981. After Smt. Deobala Jain refused, the offer of appointment was made to Smt. Chandra Goel. This offer was a subiect matter of litigation in the civil court. In a suit for injunction brought by Km. Prabha Sharma, who had been continuously working as acting Principal on the date the offer was given to Smt. Chandra Goel Hon. H. N. Seth, J. (as he then was) held that Smt. Chandra Goel could not be appointed as Principal till such time as the resolution for this purpose passed by the Committee did not become operative and effective. The appointment became effective after 30th April, 1981. The appointment became effective after 30th April, 1981. Consequently, the appointment offered to Smt. Chandra Goel after 7th April, 1981 being contrary to the embargo placed by the Radiogram was invalid. 10. THE case of Km. Prabha Sharma was on different facts. THE appointment order had not seen the light of the day till 30th April, 1981. This is not so in the present case, It was observed: "It was only on 30th April, 1981 when Smt. Deobala Jain expressed her inability to join the post, that the offer made by the Committee of Management came to an end and the Committee of Management became entitled to offer the post (to appoint) to Smt. Chandra Goel. I am, therefore, clearly of opinion that the stands taken by the Regional Inspectress of Girls' Schools that Smt. Chandra Goel had been appointed as Principal of the institution after and in contravention of the embargo imposed upon by the instructions contrary in the radiogram dated 7th April, 1981 appears to be correct. Arguing that by the mere appointment, respondent no. 2 could not acquire any right, counsel referred to a decision reported in State of Haryana v. Suresh Chand, 1974 (3) SCC page 220. In that case, respondents 2, 8, 9 and 14 respectively in the list filed the writ petition under Article 226 for a mandamus claiming that since there was deemed vacancy and necessary notification for appointment was made, the State Government was obliged to issue appointment letter. The writ was issued in their favour by the High Court. But the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the High Court by observing that the existence of the vacancy did not give a legal right to the respondents to be selected for appointment. On the basis of the aforesaid decision, the learned counsel urged that the petitioner could not be compelled to give appointment to respondent no. 2. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has no relevance for deciding the point arising for decision before us. In the instant case, respondent no. 2's appointment as held above, had become final under Section 16-E (8). The job of the Committee of Management after the order under Section 16-E (8) was to give effect to the direction of the Regional Deputy Director of Education. In the instant case, respondent no. 2's appointment as held above, had become final under Section 16-E (8). The job of the Committee of Management after the order under Section 16-E (8) was to give effect to the direction of the Regional Deputy Director of Education. It could not take any contrary decision on the direction given under Section 16-E (8). It had to follow and implement it. Nothing in any sense was pending on the 7th April, 1981. 11. NO other point was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. THE writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed