JUDGMENT : ANSHUMAN SINGH, J. 1. These writ petitions, mentioned above, have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by various teachers alleged to have been appointed on ad hoc basis in different Institutions of the State with a prayer for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay the salary to the Petitioners from the date of their appointments The Petitioners have claimed payment of salaries under the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 24 of 1971. In the case of Ram Lakhan Tripathi v. The District Inspector of Schools he has claimed his salary of lecturer on the ground that he was a senior most L.T. Grade teacher of the institution and was promoted by the committee of management on the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit against 5% quota. 2. Since the questions involved in all the writ petitions are similar and common, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each case in our opinion, in these petitions two questions arise for determination which are as under: 1. Whether the teachers employed by the committee of management in various Intermediate Colleges of the State u/s 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as Uttar Pradesh Act No. 5 of 1982) are entitled to payment of salaries for which a mandamus, should be issued to the Respondents. 2. Whether a teacher who claims to have been promoted on the post of lecturer by the committee of management against 5% quota being the senior most teacher is entitled to his salary for which a mandamus should be issued to the Respondent 3. Before dealing with the aforesaid questions involved in these petitions we would like to refer to some of the important facts before passing of the enactment of Act No. 24 of 1971. After independence there have been mushroom growth of Intermediate/High Schools in the State which are being managed by the private committee of management. Teachers who were employed in these Institutions were not being paid their salaries in time, salaries were not being paid in full, some of them had to teach for several years in the hope of getting salaries. After independence there have been mushroom growth of Intermediate/High Schools in the State which are being managed by the private committee of management. Teachers who were employed in these Institutions were not being paid their salaries in time, salaries were not being paid in full, some of them had to teach for several years in the hope of getting salaries. Payment of salaries to these teachers was solely the responsibility of the committee of management. The educated youths of the State were allured by these committee of managements to accept job of a teacher in the hope of getting salary payable to a teacher but some times they had to wait for getting the same for months and years together. These are the hard realities which cannot be ignored. Instances have not been only solitary but many where the poor teachers serving in these institutions were being exploited by the committee of management. We cannot refrain ourselves from observing that the State Government did not make any endeavour to establish government institutions in the State in the last 45 years i.e. since independence for the reasons best known to it. The education was allowed to be imparted by the private institutions controlled and managed by the committee of management, which in our opinion, has largely contributed to the spate of litigations. It was in this background that the State legislature enacted Act No. 24 of 1971 which was subsequently amended by Uttar Pradesh Act No. 26 of 1975. The said legislation was enacted with the solemn object to regulate the payment of salaries to teachers and other employees of High Schools and Intermediate Colleges receiving aid out of the said funds and to provide procedure for the same. 4. After the enforcement of Act No. 24 of 1971, there is no doubt that the hardships, miseries and the exploitation of teachers did not completely evaporate but it has been reduced to a considerable degree. Another Act namely Act No. 5 of 1982 was enacted for the purposes of appointment of teachers in the Higher Secondary institutions and a commission known as Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission was established u/s 3 of the said Act. However, at the moment, we are not concerned with the other provisions except Section 18 which reads as under : 18. However, at the moment, we are not concerned with the other provisions except Section 18 which reads as under : 18. Ad hoc Teachers -- (1) Where the management has notified a vacancy to the commission in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and -- (a) the Commission has failed to recommend the name of any suitable candidate for being appointed as a teacher specified in the Schedule within one year from the date of such notification ; or (b) the post of such teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months, then, the management may appoint by direct recruitment or promotion, a teacher on purely ad hoc basis from amongst the person possessing qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made thereunder. 5. We have heard all the learned counsels for the Petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents. It has been urged before us that though the Petitioners have been appointed on adhoc basis for which the intimation has been sent to the District Inspector of Schools but no approval has been accorded nor the salary has been paid to them. It is well settled that in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in R.N. Yadav v. The District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad 1988 AWC 353 no prior approval for making adhoc appointment by the management from District Inspector of Schools pending regular appointment by the Commission is necessary. It is also settled that even after the appointment made by the committee of management under the said Section of a ad hoc teacher, no approval is necessary from the District Inspector of Schools. The appointment made to a teacher shall cease to have effect from earliest of the dates mentioned in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-Section (3) of Section 18 of the Act. In view of the fact stated in the preceding paragraph, the only requirement on the part of the committee of management regarding appointment made of a teacher u/s 18 is to send the papers for the purposes of according financial approval as the responsibility of payment of salary of such teachers is of the State Government and it is for this purpose the papers are submitted by the committee of management to the District Inspector of Schools. It would also not be out of place to mention here that though the power of recruitment of teachers in Higher Secondary Schools was entrusted to a Commission established under Uttar Pradesh Act No. 5 of 1982 for making selection of teachers but it is unfortunate that the object of constituting the Commission has not been achieved so far which has resulted in large number of ad hoc appointments made in the Institution by the committee of management from time to time u/s 18 and also under the various Removal of Difficulties Orders issued by the State Government from time to time and in fact this policy of ad hocism adopted by the State Government has made the situation worst confounded, inasmuch as, there have been cases in which the committee of managements have been making ad hoc appointments beyond the sanctioned strength of the teachers in their Colleges and the responsibility of payment of salary to such teachers has been saddled in the State Government. 6. Now, before we proceed to determine the maintainability of the writ petition and the controversies involved in these cases, we think it proper and appropriate to examine the scheme of the Act No. 24 of 1971. In this connection first we would like to refer to the relevant provisions namely Sections 3, 5, 6 and 11, which reads as under : Section 3. Payment of salary within time and without unauthorised deductions. (1) Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, the salary of a teacher or other employees of an institution in respect of any period after the thirty first day of March. 1971, shall be paid before the expiry of the twentieth day, or such earlier day as the State Government may by general or special order in that behalf appoint of the month next following the month in respect of which or any part of which it is payable. (2) The salary shall subject to the provisions of sub-Section (3), be paid without deductions of any kind except those authorised by the regulations or by any rules made under the Act or by any other law for the time being in force. (2) The salary shall subject to the provisions of sub-Section (3), be paid without deductions of any kind except those authorised by the regulations or by any rules made under the Act or by any other law for the time being in force. (3) Where the salary of a teacher or other employee of an Institution is not paid in accordance with sub-Section (1) due to any default on the part of the management, the Inspector may, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, pay or cause to be paid within ten days from the date mentioned in that sub-Section such salary from the moneys credited to the account mentioned in sub-Section (I) of Section 4 at the rate of salary last drawn by such teacher or employee as the case may be, and in case fresh appointment at the rate of the minimum of the pay scale in which he has been appointed, and any adjustment in respect of such payment shall, thereafter be made as soon as possible. Section 5. Procedure for payment of salary in the case of certain institutions: (1) The management of every institution shall for the purposes of disbursement of salaries to its teachers and employees open in a Schedule Bank or a co-operative bank a separate account to be operated jointly by a representative of the management and the Inspector or such other Officer as may be authorised by the Inspector in that behalf : Provided that after the account is opened the Inspector may, if he is, subject to any rules made under this Act, satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest so to do, instruct the bank that the account shall be operated by the representative as the management alone, and may at any time revoke such institution : Provided further that in the case referred to in the proviso to sub-Section (2) or where a difficulty arises in the disbursement of salaries due to any default of the management the Inspector may instruct the Bank that the account shall be operated only by himself or by such other Officer as may be authorised by him in that behalf and may at any time revoke such institution. (2) The management shall deposit in the said amount by such date as may be specified by general or special orders by the Inspector, eighty percent or where the State Government or an Officer authorised by the State Government having regard to the money required to be disbursed, directs a higher percentage as it or he may direct of the amount received from students as fees which in accordance with the general or special orders of the State Government in that behalf and for so long as such orders are not made in accordance with the directions of the Inspector form part of the maintenance fund : Provided that where the said percentage of fees is not deposited as aforesaid the Inspector may by order prohibit the management from making any realisation of fees from the students thereupon the Inspector may recover the fees (either through the teachers of the institution or in such other manner as he thinks fit) directly from the students and shall deposit the fees so recovered in the said account. (3) The entire amount of the maintenance grant and the amount of eighty per-cent or such higher percentage as the State Government or an Officer authorised by the State Government may by general or special order in that behalf determine, of the grants for reimbursement of freeships and other similar concession shall also be paid by the State Government into the said account. (4) No money credited to the said account shall be applied for any purpose except the following, namely : (a) Payment of the said salaries falling due for any period after March 31, 1971; (b) credit of the institution's contribution, if any, to the provident fund accounts of the teachers and employees ; and such portion of the balance in the account at the end of the month of July each year as exceeds the aggregate of one month's salary of the teachers and the employees of the Institution after meeting the liability for payment of salaries for the period for which fees have been realised from the student shall be made over to the management for expenditure on the Institution. (c) such other expenditure for the purposes of the institution as may be directed by the State Government in that behalf. (c) such other expenditure for the purposes of the institution as may be directed by the State Government in that behalf. (5) The salary of a teacher or employees shall be paid by transfer of the amount from the said account to his account, if any, in the same bank, or if he has no account in that bank, then by cheque. (6) In respect of a place where there is no Schedule Bank or a cooperative bank the provisions of this Section shall apply with such modifications as the State Government may by notification in the Gazette specify, and the reference in this Section to bank shall in that case be construed as reference to a post office savings bank. Section 6. Enforcement of provisions and directions. - (1) Where the Inspector on the basis of an Inspection of an institution or its records or otherwise is satisfied that its management has committed default in complying with any direction given u/s 4 of with any provision of Section 3 or Section 5 he may recommend to the Regional Deputy Director Education, that action be taken against the Institution under sub section (2). (2) On receipt of a recommendation under sub-Section (1), the Regional Deputy Director of Education, may call upon the management to comply with the said direction or provision or to show cause within a week why the management should not be suspended. (3) Where the management fails to comply as aforesaid or to show cause, or the Regional Deputy Director of Education considers the cause shown to be insufficient, he may by order supersede the management for such period not exceeding one year as may be specified in the order, and authorise any person (hereinafter referred to as the Authorised Controller) to take over the management of the Institution for the said period ; Provided that the Regional Deputy Director of Education, may where he considers it necessary or expedient so to do -- (i) extend the said period from time to time, so however, that the period so extended does not exceed five years in the aggregate ; or (ii) revoke the order at any time. Provided further that nothing in clause (ii) of the preceding proviso shall bar the passing of a fresh order under this Section. Provided further that nothing in clause (ii) of the preceding proviso shall bar the passing of a fresh order under this Section. (4) On an order being made under sub-Section (3) the Authorised Controller shall, to the exclusion of the management and subject only to the directions if any, of the Regional Deputy Director Education the Director of the State Government, exercise all the powers and perform all the functions of the management, including management of property belonging to or vested in the institution, and in particular, operate singly the bank account referred to in Section 5 : Provided that nothing in this Section shall be construed to confer on the Authorised Controller the power to transfer any such property (except by way of letting from month to month in the ordinary course of management) or to create any charge thereon (except as a condition of receipt of any grant-in-aid of the institution from the State Government). (5) Any order made or direction given under this Section shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment or instrument relating to the management and control of the institution (including any scheme of administration) or relating to the property belonging to or vested in the institution. Section 11. Punishment, penalties and procedure : (1) If any default is committed in complying with any direction u/s 4 or with the provisions of Section 3 or Section 6, every person who at the time the default was committed was manager or any other person vested with the authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution shall, unless he proves that the default was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the default, be punishable, in the case of a default in complying with the provisions of Section 3 with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees and in case of any other default, with imprisonment which may extend to six months or fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. (2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Section except with the previous sanction of the Regional Deputy Director of Education. (2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Section except with the previous sanction of the Regional Deputy Director of Education. (3) Every offence under this Section shall be cognizable, but no police officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent shall investigate any such offence without the order of a Magistrate of the first class or make arrest therefore without a warrant. (d) No Court below the rank of a Magistrate of the first class shall take cognizance of an offence under this Section. 7. From the perusal of the language of Section 3, the responsibility of paying salary to teacher of an Institution after 31st March, 1971 is of the State Government. The legislature has also specifically provided that the salary due to a teacher should be paid by the State Government by 20th of every calender month. It is relevant to mention at this stage that it is a teacher of a institution who is entitled to receive salary from the State Government under this Act after 31st March, 1971. Since the word, 'institution' has been used in Section 3, we have found out what is the meaning of the institution as used in Section 3. The word, 'institution' used in Section 3 has been defined u/s 2(b). which means recognised institution for the time being receiving maintenance grant from the State Government. The maintenance grant has also been defined in Section 2(c) which means such grant in aid of a institution as the State Government may by general or special order in that behalf direct to be treated as maintenance grant appropriate to the level of the Institution. Thus, it is clear that a teacher is entitled to payment of salary from the State Government serving in an institution and the institution should be recognized one and must be receiving maintenance grant from the State Government. As held by this Court in a Full Bench decision of State of U. P v. District Judge, Varanasi 1981 UP LB EC 336 the teachers serving in a institution not receiving maintenance grant from the State Government are not entitled for payment of salary under Act No. 24 of 1971. As held by this Court in a Full Bench decision of State of U. P v. District Judge, Varanasi 1981 UP LB EC 336 the teachers serving in a institution not receiving maintenance grant from the State Government are not entitled for payment of salary under Act No. 24 of 1971. The language used in Section 3 also indicates that a statutory duty has been cast upon the State to ensure payment of salaries of teachers/employees of a recognised institution within the time specified in that provision. Section further provides that the committee of management is also equally responsible for the payment of salary to the teacher/employees in their institutions. In Section 4 of the Act, the District Inspector of Schools has also been invested with a supervisory power of inspection etc. If we look to the provisions of Section 5 of the said Act, it is clear that a joint account has to be opened in a Schedule bank or in a co-operative bank for the purposes of disbursement of salary to a teacher or other employees to be operated by a representative of the management or the Inspector or such other Officer, as may be authorised by the Inspector in that behalf. The legislature has also provided that in case any default has been made on the part of the management or same difficulty is created in the disbursement of salaries to teachers, the District Inspector of Schools has been empowered to instruct the bank that the account shall be singly operated by himself only. If we have a glance to the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, we find that every drastic and stringent power has been vested in the District Inspector of Schools under the said Act. In case management fails to comply with the directions contained in Section 4 or with any provisions of Section 3 or Section 5, he may recommend to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, that action be taken against the institution under sub-Section (2). The action proposed under sub-Section (2) is suspension of the Committee of Management, Sub-clause (3) of Section 6 further provides that in case the management fails to comply with the directions issued by the Inspector, the Deputy Director of Education may even supersede the committee of management. The action proposed under sub-Section (2) is suspension of the Committee of Management, Sub-clause (3) of Section 6 further provides that in case the management fails to comply with the directions issued by the Inspector, the Deputy Director of Education may even supersede the committee of management. Apart from the aforesaid stringent and drastic powers, even the procedure for punishment and penalties has also been provided in Section 11 which provides that if any default is committed in complying with any directions u/s 4 or with the provisions of Section 3, the person who was manager at the time of default or any other person vested with the authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the Institution may be punished and the maximum punishment provided is six months imprisonment or fine, which may extend to Rs. 1000/- or with both. 8. One of the submissions which has been made on behalf of the Petitioners before us in these petitions is that in case of appointment of an ad hoc teacher by the committee of management pending regular selection by the Commission established under Act No. 5 of 1982, the District Inspector of Schools does not possess any power to examine the validity of such appointment but should accord financial approval and should also pay salary to such teachers. As we have already held in the preceding paragraphs that no prior approval is necessary in case of appointment of a teacher u/s 18 nor even subsequent approval is required for the said appointment but in case the salary of such teacher has to be paid by the State Government, the District Inspector of Schools is empowered to examine the validity of appointment for the purposes of payment of salary as held in a Division Bench decision of this Court in Radhey Shayam Dube v. District Inspector of Schools 1987 UP LB EC 553, with which we entirely agree. 9. For the discussions and the facts mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, the irresistible conclusion is that before a teacher claims salary from the State Government under Act No. 24 of 1971 he has to satisfy the District Inspector of Schools that he is entitled to be paid his salary and in case he fails to satisfy the District Inspector of Schools, the District Inspector of Schools has ample power under the Act No. 24 of 1971 to refuse payment of salary. After a perusal of the provisions of Act No. 24 of 1971 and other allied Statute we feel that this Court should specify the conditions which are precedent for payment of salary to a teacher by the State Government which in our opinion, are as under : 1. The teacher must be serving in a institution as defined in Section 2(b) of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 11 of 1921) and the institution must be recognised one as defined u/s 2(d) of Act No. 11 of 1921. 2. The institution for the being must be receiving maintenance grant from the State Government as defined in Section 2(c) of Uttar Pradesh Act No. 24 of 1971. 3. The institution must be included in the list of the institutions prepared under Act No. 24 of 1971. The teachers and the employees of the Institution must be receiving salary from the State Government. 4. The post against which teacher claims to have been appointed must be a sanctioned post by the Director of Education as provided u/s 9 of Uttar Pradesh Act No. 24 of 1971. 5. A teacher must possess minimum qualification for being appointed on the said post as provided under the Intermediate Education Act. 6. The District Inspector of Schools, before ordering for the payment of salary to an ad-hoc lecturer promoted from amongst the L.T. Grade teachers of the institution, has to be satisfied that such teacher was eligible and qualified to be appointed as lecturer for the subject. The conditions mentioned above, which have been formulated by us are conditions based on the existence of established facts. It is also relevant to mention at this stage that the petitions filed before us do not contain complete materials relating to the conditions enumerated above as some of the facts are definitely lacking in the petitions. 10. Learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners have urged that this Court should direct the Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit in order to ascertain the facts stated before issuance of mandamus or in the alternative interim mandamus should be issued to the Respondents to pay salary to the Petitioners within a stipulated period of time or to show cause. 10. Learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners have urged that this Court should direct the Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit in order to ascertain the facts stated before issuance of mandamus or in the alternative interim mandamus should be issued to the Respondents to pay salary to the Petitioners within a stipulated period of time or to show cause. The submission in so far it relates to the calling of the counter affidavit is concerned, in our opinion, if the Standing counsel is directed to file the same, it would be a futile exercise because of the material facts which are necessary for claiming salary from the State government since have not been mentioned in these petitions, the State Government would not be able to give proper reply to the factual position in the counter affidavit and even if certain facts mentioned in the writ petition are denied in the counter affidavit, this Court would not be competent to record evidence or make enquiries regarding the correctness of the facts or otherwise in writ jurisdiction. Apart from this, we are also constrained in observing that sitting in this jurisdiction, we have gathered the experience that in cases where we have called for a counter affidavit from the State Government, no counter affidavit were filed. We are not sure as to whether the authorities were informed about the filing of the counter affidavit and when the cases are listed for admission and orders usual request is made on behalf of State for grant of further time. Regarding issuance of interim mandamus the position still appears to be worst. In as much as, cases have come to our notice in which interim mandamus was issued to pay salary to the Petitioners within a fixed period of time or to show cause, the information of such interim mandamus having been issued by this Court were not even communicated to the District Inspector of Schools by the counsel of the State and the Petitioners in those cases rushed to this Court just after the expiry of the period mentioned in the interim mandamus to file contempt petitions which has contributed to the piling of the large number of contempt petitions in this Court. Not only this, instances have also been brought to our notice that in many cases where the interim mandamus were issued, the payments were made to the teachers who were not really entitled for the same and under the threat of contempt the District Inspector of Schools could not ascertain the establishment of requisite conditions before passing the orders for payment of salary to the teachers. We have given our thoughtful considerations to the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioners and have fully examined and scrutinised the provisions contained in Act No. 24 of 1971. In our opinion, Act No. 24 of 1971 is self contained, exhaustive and is a complete code in itself, as far as the payment of salary to a teacher by the State Government is concerned and in view of the provisions contained in Act No. 24 of 1971, we are of the considered opinion that the Petitioners have statutory, efficacious alternative remedy of making representation before the District Inspector of Schools and as such the petitions filed by the Petitioners, without exhausting the remedy under Act No. 24 of 1971, deserves to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. 11. Counsel have also contended before us that the alternative remedy of approaching the District Inspector of Schools would not be efficacious. We find ourselves unable to accept the said contention. It is true that the alternative remedy should not be illusory one and it should be efficacious. In our opinion, the making of the representations before the District Inspector of Schools for payment of salary is effective and efficacious alternative remedy, in view of the provisions contained in the Act. We have no hesitation in saying that the remedy provided under Act No. 24 of 1971 also appears to be speedy and as such the Petitioners cannot be permitted to invoke the entire ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without approaching to the District Inspector of Schools. We have no hesitation in saying that the remedy provided under Act No. 24 of 1971 also appears to be speedy and as such the Petitioners cannot be permitted to invoke the entire ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without approaching to the District Inspector of Schools. We would also like to mention that since there are hundreds of institutions in a district whose employees are receiving salary from the State Government and there being one District Inspector of Schools or two or three Associate District Inspector of Schools, it would not be possible for the District Inspector of Schools to dispose of the representations made by teachers who are not being paid their salary and whose number may run in hundreds because of the policy of ad hocism adopted by the State Government, we think it proper and appropriate that the District Inspector of Schools should be given a reasonable time to dispose of the representations filed by those teachers which period should not be less than two months and not more than three months from the date of its presentation and the writ petitions filed just after few days of making representations before the District Inspector of Schools should also be thrown as premature. There are various petitions out of the petitions mentioned above in which the Petitioners have already made representations to the District Inspector of Schools for payment of their salary. Since they have already availed the statutory alternative remedy provided under the Act No. 24 of 1971 of making representation, which we have held to be efficacious and speedy, they cannot be permitted to avail two remedies simultaneously and as such the petitions filed on their behalf deserves to be dismissed on the ground that they are already pursuing the statutory alternative remedy under Act No. 24 of 1971. 12. Before parting with those cases, we would like to observe that the liability for payment of salary to the teachers is joint namely the committee of management and the District Inspector of Schools. However, the District Inspector of Schools has been vested with the supervisory power under Act No. 24 of 1971. 12. Before parting with those cases, we would like to observe that the liability for payment of salary to the teachers is joint namely the committee of management and the District Inspector of Schools. However, the District Inspector of Schools has been vested with the supervisory power under Act No. 24 of 1971. It is, therefore, desirable that the District Inspector of Schools should ensure the payment of salary of those teachers who are not paid their salary by 20th of every month, though they are legally entitled for the same and if he delay is caused due to the default committed by the committee of management, the District Inspector of Schools should not hesitate in initiating the coercive measures at the earliest as contemplated under the Act. We are confident that the guidelines which we have enumerated in our judgment before passing the order for payment of salary to the teachers shall be strictly followed both by the District Inspector of Schools as well as by the Committee of management in order to provide relief to the teachers which in our opinion has been most exploited class. 13. The petitions are accordingly rejected in limine on the ground of alternative remedy. However, since the Petitioners have already availed statutory alternative remedy of making representations before the District Inspector of Schools, their representations should be disposed of by the District Inspector of Schools concerned by speaking, reasoned order, in view of the guidelines suggested by us within a period of three months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order of this Court. The Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of the judgment to the Director of Education, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow for getting it circulated amongst all the District Inspector of Schools, of the State for perusal and guidance. Copy of this judgment be also given to the learned counsels for the parties on payment of usual charges within three days.