JUDGMENT N.L. Ganguly, J. - Quite a good number of writ petitions by teachers, lecturers, Cl sections 111 and Class IV employees of Educational Institutions in the State have been filed for a direction writ of mandamus by this Court to the District Inspector of School/the District Basic Education Officer and the Accounts Officer for making payment of salary to them. Since the facts and legal questions raised by the petitioners in the writ petitions are similar and common, we propose to decide all the writ petitions of similar nature by a common judgment. 2. About 56 writ petitions have been filed by ad hoc tea jars and ad hoc lecturers of High School and Intermediate Colleges who claimed to have been appointed under Section 18 (1) of U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act and (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981. These petitions have been grouped as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. nil of 1992, Atesh Kuuar Singh v. District Inspector of School & others, connected with Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 29217 of 1991. Kamakhya Prokash Pathak v. District Inspector of Schools, Deorla & another, which have also been decided by a separate judgment by this Division Bench today. 3. Since after Independence there have been mushroom growth of Intermediate/High School/Junior High School* in the State Which are being managed by their private Committee of Management. Teachers and employees who are employed in these institutions were not being paid their salaries in time, salaries were not paid in full, torn ; of them bad to teach for several years in the hope of getting salaries in the near future. The payment of salaries to those teachers and other employees was made by the Committee of Managements. The educated you the of the State were allured by these Committee of Managements to accept job of a teacher in hope of getting salary and being employed. They had to wait and suffer for month and accept low emoluments from the employers. These gre hard realities which are all known. The poor teachers had to suffer and were exploited by the Committee of Managements in various ways. We cannot re fain ourselves from observing that the State Government did not rouke any endeavour to establish Government Institutions in the State for the last 40 years i. e sics Independence for the reasons best known to it. The poor teachers had to suffer and were exploited by the Committee of Managements in various ways. We cannot re fain ourselves from observing that the State Government did not rouke any endeavour to establish Government Institutions in the State for the last 40 years i. e sics Independence for the reasons best known to it. The education is allowed to be imparted by private Institutions controlled and managed by the Committee of Managements and this has contributed to the spate of litigation's. It was in this back ground the State Legislature enacted Act No. 24 of 1971 U. P, High School & Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to Teachers & others Employees) Act, 1871 which was subsequently amended by the U. P. Act No. 26 of 19 75. The said enactment applied to the teachers and lecturers of the High School & Intermediate Colleges in the State the Class HI and Class IV employees of the High School and Intermediate Colleges were not coverted by the said enactment. The regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act were not applicable to the Class III and Class IV and employee of the High School and Intermediate Colleges in the State Since regulations framed under Section 16 of the Intermediate Education Act were not applicable to the Class III and Class IV employees of tie High School & Intermediate Colleges. The State Government by G, O. No. Section 789 (l)/l6/(7)-75, dated 1st March, 1975 for the first time amended provisions of the regulations of Chapters II and III of the Regulations which included the benefits and protection to the Class III and Class IV employees. 4. After the enforcement of the Act No. 24 of 197i, there is no doubt that the hardships, miseries and the exploitation of the teacher did not completely evaporate but it has been reduced to a considerable degree. 5. The Junior High Schools and Primary Schools in the State were included and brought under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, regulating the running of the Junior High Schools and Primary Schools in the State. The teachers and the staff of such recognised and approved Junior High Schools are hoovered by the provisions of U. P. Recognized Basic School Junior High School) (Recruitment and Condition of Services) Ruler, 1978. The teachers and the staff of such recognised and approved Junior High Schools are hoovered by the provisions of U. P. Recognized Basic School Junior High School) (Recruitment and Condition of Services) Ruler, 1978. the salaries of teachers and other employees of Junior High Schools are regulated by the provisions of U. P. Junior High School (Teachers and other Employees, Payment of Salary) Act, 1978 (U. P. Act No. 6 of 1979). 6. We shall consider and deoido the writ petitions filed by the teachers of High Schools which have been raised as High School from Junior High Schools under Section 7-A of the Intermediate Education Act. 7. The abovementioned writ petitioners Mahipal Singh P war and Smt. Raj Bala Sharma & others are by teachers of such High Schools which have been raised as High Schools, from Junior High School. These teachers claim themselves now to be teachers of High School entitled to be paid their salaries by the State Government under the U.P. High School & Intermediate Colleges Payment of Salaries and other Employees Act, 1971. The contention on behalf of such teacher's are enumerated as under ; - (i) The teachers of Junior High Schools which are approved and recognised under the U. P. Basic Education Act and also in the list of Institution under the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 and Salary Act, 1978, when raised as High School under Section 7-A of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and automatically entitled to receive payment of salary from the D.I O.S. under Act No. of 19?1. (ii) The mere fact that the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. raised approved and recognised the Junior High School, there is no further legal requirement needed for entitling the teachers and other employees of such new High Schools to receive salary from State through D. I. O. S. under the U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971. (iii) the institutions Which were Junior High Schools getting maintenance grant from the State shall oomc automatically included in list of institutions covered under U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971. (iv) In Junior High School there were for instance 10 teachers teaching for last number of years before its besoming High School under Section 7-A of the intermediate Education Act. (iv) In Junior High School there were for instance 10 teachers teaching for last number of years before its besoming High School under Section 7-A of the intermediate Education Act. After recognition as High School the D.I O.S. is under legal obligation to sanction payment to ail the 10 teachers. (iv) Whether D. I. O. S. who sanctioned running of an additional section or permitting teaching of a new subject in the institution itself amounts to creation of a post for a teacher in that subject. (vi) A Junior High School recognised under the U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972, not receiving any maintenance grant from the State, having a number of teachers which is not commensurate to the number of students according to norms prescribed by the Director of Education department all are entitled to be paid salary by the State Government. 8. Before discussing the questions formulated above, it would be necessary to examine and arrive at a conclusion, when teachers and other employees of High School/Intermediate Colleges becomes entitled to receive salary from the State Government under the U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971. This question would not detain us since the law on the controversy is settled by Full 3enoh of our Court reported in 1981 UPLBEC 336, State of U. P. and others v. District Judge, Varanasi. It is now settled that an institution not receiving maintenance grant from the State Government shall not be an Institution as defined in Section 2 (b) of the U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971, to be covered and included in list of institutions under the U P. Act No. 24 of 1971. There are two conditions necessary for being included in the list of Institutions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971, firstly institution recognised or received recognition as High School/Intermediate College as defined in Section 2 (d) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, secondly it was receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. 9. It is also to be considered that the Full Bench judgment of 1981 (supra) was dealing with High Schools and Inter Colleges. There was no consideration about institutions which were raised to High School under Section 7-A of the Intermediate Act from status of a Junior High School. 9. It is also to be considered that the Full Bench judgment of 1981 (supra) was dealing with High Schools and Inter Colleges. There was no consideration about institutions which were raised to High School under Section 7-A of the Intermediate Act from status of a Junior High School. This question was also considered and decided by the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1988 UPLBEC 665, Om Pal Singh and others v. State of U P. end others. The claim for benefit of Section 3 of the Act No. 24 of 1971 of teachers and employees of upgraded institution can succeed only when the institution satisfied requirements of Section 2 (b) of the Act read with Section 3, 2 (c) and 10. We are in complete agreement with the Division Bench judgment of i 988 UPLBEC 665 and hold that the teachers and staff of such upgraded institutions would only be entitled to be included in list of institutions after fulfilling the conditions in Section 3, 10, (2; (b) and 2 (o) of the U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971. 10. The mere fact that a Junior High School is upgraded under Section 7-A of the Intermediate Education Act, approved and recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education U. P. would not be sufficient to attract provisions of Sections 3 and 10 of Salary Act, 1971, 11. Tho next question that would require cur consideration and decisions are point Nos. 4, 5 and 6 narrated above. It is not disputed that all approved and recognised High Schools and Intermediate Colleges in the State of U. P. are not receiving "giant in aid" or maintenance grant from the State. Grant in aid and Maintenance grant to educational institutions are paid by the State according to the provisions of U. P. Education Code. Thus, it would be necessary for claiming benefit of Sections 3 and IU of the Payment of Salary Act No. 24 of 1971, the Committee of Management of the institution shall have to apply for grant in aid/maintenance grant to the State Government and it is only after orders for and such maintenance grant, an institution may become eligible for being included in the list of institutions under the Payment of Salary Act, 1971. It is made clear that mere fact that an institution was paid maintenance grant/grant-in-aid itself would not be sufficient for claiming benefit of Sections 3 and 10 of the Act 24 of 1971. The State Government from time to time, consider and included recognised approved High School and Inter Colleges (already receiving maintenance/grant-in-aid) in the list of institutions for being Paid Salary to the teachers and other employees under Act of 1971 according to policy and finances of the State Government. 12. It has been argued in sum bee of oases that there were 10 approved teachers in the Junior High School just before the upgrading of the institution and all the teachers were working for a number of years since before the upgradation and even after upgrading, but the D.I.O.S. Lekhadikari refused to Pay Salary to some of those teachers even after including the institution in the list of institutions, for payment of salary under tho Act. We are called upon to examine and decide as to whether the D.I.O.S./Lekha-dhikari were legally justified in not making payment of salary to such teachers and other employees of the institution who bad been working in the approved and recognised Junior High School since before its upgradation under Section 7-A of the Intermediate Education Act an i even after upgrading as High School continued to be in service and teaching in the institution. 13. In deciding the above question, it would be necessary to examine the provisions of Section 7-A of the Intermediate Education Act, read with Section 9 of the U. P. Act of 1971. These provisions are quoted as under for ready reference and convenience : - "7-A. Approval of the State Government for recognition. - not with standing anything contained in clause (4) of Section 7, any order of the Board giving recognition to an institution for the first time or any new subject or group or for a higher class shall not have effect until it is approved by the State Government." 14. The provision of Section 9 of the High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries) Act, 1971 is reproduced as under : "9. Approval for posts. The provision of Section 9 of the High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries) Act, 1971 is reproduced as under : "9. Approval for posts. - No institution shall create a new post of teacher or other employee except with the previous approval of the Director, or such other officer as may be empowered in that behalf by the Director." The perusal of the aforesaid provisions clearly go to show that the fact that the institution is approved and recognised by the Board for the first time or any new subject or Board group or for a higher class or addition of selection to a existing class shall have no effect unless it is approved by the State Government. It is also made clear that the permission to start teaching of a new subject or opening a class or section by D. I. O, S. shall be of do consequence unless approved by the State Government e.g. Director of Education. Tho number of posts for teacher and other employee of an institution is required to be created and sanctioned by the Director of Education according to the prescribed norms and standard laid by the Education Department. It is the sole domain of the Director of Education to sanction and create posts of teacher and other staff, if the management committee on the D, I. O. S considers and decides the number of posts needed for the institution according to the strength of students, it is of no consequences. the power of creation and sanctioning posts for institution is specified. It cannot be said that the D.I.O.S. approved and permitted opening of a section or a class or approved teaching of a new subject, itself would amount to creation of a post, fastening legal duty and obligation of paying salary to such staff under the Act No. 24 of 1971. 15. At the time of upgradation of the'institution as High School, it is for the Director of Education to sanction and approve the number of post for teachers and other staff according to the number of students in the institution and subjects approved, If there were excess number of teachers and staff at the time of upgradation of the institution such excess staff/toaobor would not be entitled to have benefit of Payment of Salary Act, 1971. It is either the Management Committee to pay them or they may be terminated. It is either the Management Committee to pay them or they may be terminated. The view we are expressing is based according to the Division Benoh Judgment of this Court reported in 1985 UPLBEC 155, Daddaro Singh and others v. Daw Narain Singh (Junior) High School and others We fully agree to the said view of the Division Bench We are of the view that the D. I. O. S. has ample jurisdiction to examine and refuse payment of salary to a person if he is satisfied that there was no creation for the post by the State Government/Director of Education 16. It would be necessary for this Court to determine the maintainability of the writ petitions and controversies involved. The above petitions by teachers of High School raised as such from Junior High School and the claim that they are entitled to receive salary from the State under the provisions of Act No, 24 of 1971. In this connection, first we would like to refer to the relevant provisions, namely, Section 3, 5. 6 and 11, Which reads as under: "Section 3 Payment of salary within time and without unauthorised deduction. - (l)not with standing any contract to the contrary, the salary of a teacher or other employee 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 tho 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 tho 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 tho 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 is Which be 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 certain institutions -(1) The management of every institution shall for (he 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 shell be operated by the representative as the management alone, and may at any time revoke such institution 5 Provided further t'at 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 instruction. (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 per cent or where the State Government or an officer authorised by the State Government having regard to the money required to be disbursed, directs * higher percentage as it or he may direct of the amount received from the 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 from 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 fee 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 generator 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 the said t account. (4) No mamey 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 aft .r 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 tho 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 co-operative bank tho 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 bant." 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 comply with any direction given under Section 4 or with any provisions 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 orders 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 proceeding proviso shall bar the passing of a fresh order under this Section. 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 the 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 ; Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed to confer on the Authorised Controller the power to transfer any sub property (except by way of letting from month to month in 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 not with standing anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment or instrument relating to the management and control of tho 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 under Section 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 ho proves that the default was committed without his knowledge or that be exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the default, be punishable in the esse 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 month or fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. (2) No count 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 therefor without a warrant. (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 therefor without a warrant. (4) No court below the rank of a Magistrate of the first class shall take cognisance of an offence under this section." 17. 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 calendar 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 is 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 under Section 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 i.e titled to payment of salary from the State Government serving in a institution and the institution should be recognised 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. and others v. District Judge, Varanasi and others, 1981 UPLBEC 336 that 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 oast upon the State to ensure payment of salaries of teachers/employees of recognised institution within the time pacified in that provision. The language used in Section 3 also indicates that a statutory duty has been oast upon the State to ensure payment of salaries of teachers/employees of recognised institution within the time pacified in that provision. Section further provides that the committee of management is also equally responsible for the payment of salary to the teaches employees in their institutions. In Section 4 of tho 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 cooperative 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 b; 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 some difficulty is created in the disbursement of salaries to teachers, the District Inspector of Schools has been empowered to instruct the bank that tho 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 re commend to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, that action be taken against the institution under sub-section (2). The action proposed order 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 tho 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 i 1 which provides that if any default is committed in complying with any directions under Section 4 or with the provisions of Section 3. Apart from the aforesaid stringent and drastic powers, even the procedure for punishment and penalties has also been provided in Section i 1 which provides that if any default is committed in complying with any directions under Section 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 conduit the affairs of the Institution may be punished and the maximum punishment provided in six month imprisonment or fine, which may extend to Rs. 1000/- or with both. 18. Thus, the scheme of the Act No. 24 of 1971 clearly shows that a teacher and staff, who claims salary from the State under the Act has to satisfy the District Inspector of Schools t'.at be is entitled to be paid his salary. In case he fails to satisfy the D.I.O.S. has ample sowers under the Act to refuse the payment of salary. After a perusal of the provision of the Act No. 24 of 1971 and ether allied Statute we feel that this Court should specify the conditions which are condition precedent for payment of salary to a teacher by the State Government who, in our opinion, are as under : - 1. The teacher must be serving in an institution as defined in Section 2 b) of U. P. Intermediate Education Act 1921 (hereinafter referred to as Act No. II of 1921) and the institution must bo recognised one as defined under Section 2 (d) of Act No. 11 of 1921. 2. The institution for the tira-being must be receiving maintenance grant from the State Government as defined in Section 2 (o) of the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971. 3. The institution most be included in the list of the institutions prepared under Act No. 24 of 1671. 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 under Section 9 of the U.P- Act No. ?4 of 1971. 5. A teacher must posse? minimum qualification for being appointed on the said post as provided under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. 19. 4. The post against which teacher claims to have been appointed must be a sanctioned post by the Director of Education as provided under Section 9 of the U.P- Act No. ?4 of 1971. 5. A teacher must posse? minimum qualification for being appointed on the said post as provided under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. 19. The conditions mentioned above, which have been formulated by us, are conditions which are based on tho 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 20. Learned counsel 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 tho 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 petitions 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-affidavits 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. Regarding issuance of interim mandamus the position still appears to be worst. In as much, as, oases 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 wore not even communicated to the District Inspector of Schools by the counsel for the State and the petitioners in those oases rushed to this court just after the expiry of the period mentioned in the Interim mandamus to file contempt petition 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 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. 21. Counsels 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 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 is also appears to be Speedy and as such the petitioners cannot be permitted to invoke the extra 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 whoso 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 wholism 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 these teachers which period should not be less than two month and not more than three month 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 he 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 rep assentation, 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 perusing the statutory alternative remedy under Act No. 24 of 1971. 22. 22. Before parting with those cased, we would like to observe that the liability for payment of salary to the teachers in 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 the delay is caused due to the default committed by the committee of management, the District Inspector of Schools should not hesitates 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. 23. The above two petitions are rejected In limine on the ground of alternative remedy. 24. In the connected writ petition of Udai Pratap Singh and 5 others v. State of U.P. and others, claiming payment of salary to the teachers of Primary Section of Mahatma Gandhi Inter College, Shakhwani District Deoria, it is stated that the petitioners are paid Rs. 100/- per month as alary and they are not paid salary in the approved scale. The disputed questions of fact arises in the said petition as to whether the Primary section of the Institution which admittedly is an Institution included in the list of Institutions for payment of salary under the Act 24 of 1971 is part of the said Institution or not. The petitioners have stated that Primary lection is affiliated to High School and is under the purview of the Government Order No. 3048/15-8-1989/3054/87. From the record, it appears that the authorities of the Educational department inspected the Institution and w ere of the opinion that the primary section was fit to be included in the list of institutions for payment of salary under the G.O. of 1985. All these disputed questions cannot possibly be examined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a writ petition. 25. All these disputed questions cannot possibly be examined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a writ petition. 25. However, the petitioners, if submitted representation before the District Inspector of Schools and Regional Inspect ores of Girls Schools concerned within a period of one week, it is directed that the representations should be disposed of by the District Inspector of Schools/Regional Inspect ores of Girls School by speaking, reasoned order in view of the guidelines suggested by us within three month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. 1. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992. Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, Con. with. 2. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992. Smt. Upasna Bali and another v. Committee of Management and another. 3. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992. Gabbu Lai v. District Inspector of Schools, Basti and another. 4. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992. Sadanand Rai v. The Principal, Sri Bobu High School and another. 5. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992. Lallan Prasad Khatrwal and another v. District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur and others. 6. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992. Smt. Shanti Devi and another v. Committee of Management and others. 7. Civil Miso. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992. Vitchitra Narain Dwivedi v. State of U. P. and others. 8. Civil Miso. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992. Nanak Chand v. D.I.O.S., Aligarh and another. 9. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992. Dheer Singh and others v. D.I.O.S., Meerut and others. 10. Civil Miso. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992. Vinod Kumar Singh v. D.I.O.S., Jaunpur and others. 11. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No Nil of 1992. Yogendra Pratap Dixit v. D.I.O.S., Jaunpur and others. 12. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992. Sanjai Kumar Singh and another v. D.I.O.S., Ballia and others. 13. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992. Hukum Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. 14. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992. Mishri Lal v. Director of Education, U. P., Allahabad and others. 15. Civil Mile. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992. Virendra Singh v. District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad and others. 16. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992. Km. Charu v. District Shiksha Adhikari and others. 17. 14. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992. Mishri Lal v. Director of Education, U. P., Allahabad and others. 15. Civil Mile. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992. Virendra Singh v. District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad and others. 16. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992. Km. Charu v. District Shiksha Adhikari and others. 17. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992. Ram Sewak v. District Education Officer, Farrukhabad and others 26. Writ Petition of Ashok Kumar Yadav to Mishri Lai (SI N. I, 14) noted above, are by persons claiming to be Class III and I/employees of educational institutions in the State governed by the U.P. High Schools Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of teachers and other employees) Act, 1971 These petitioners claimed that they are duly appointed Class III and Class IV employees in the educational institutions concerned governed by the provisions of the U P. Intermediate Education Act and regulations and also the U. P. High School Intermediate (Payment of Salaries to teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. These petitioners submitted that they have been duly appointed by the Committee of Management and respective heads of the institution as Class III and Class IV employees in the Institutions, which are institutions as provided in Act No. 24 of 197J entitled to be paid salary by the Government under the Act. 27. We have already considered in the earlier part of the judgment the necessary conditions for attracting the provisions of Act No. 24 of 1971 fastening the liability of payment of salary to the teachers on the State Government. The said conditions also apply in the case of Class III and Class IV employees of High School and Intermediate Colleges governed under Act No. 24 of 1971. We have already held that the scheme of the Act No 24 of 1971 is self contained code and has a statutory alternative remedy provided under the Act No. 24 of 1971 of making representations before the District Inspector of Schools or the Regional Inspector of Girls Schools. The oi aim of Class III and Class IV employees for payment of salary cannot be decided in a writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. The petitioner may avail the statutory alternative remedy of making representations before the District Inspector of Schools if not already moved such a representation. The oi aim of Class III and Class IV employees for payment of salary cannot be decided in a writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. The petitioner may avail the statutory alternative remedy of making representations before the District Inspector of Schools if not already moved such a representation. The District Inspector of Schools is directed to dispose of the representation by speaking reasoned order in view of the guidelines suggested by us, within a period of three month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order of this Court. In case representations are already filed and pending, the same may be disposed of within a period of three month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the District Inspector of Schools. 28. The writ petitions of Virendra Singh v. District Education Officer Km. Charu and Ram Sewak (Serial Nos. 10 to 12) are by Class III and Class IV employees claiming to be employed at the Junior High Schools. The provisions of Uttar Pradesh Manatyaprapta basic School Junior High School (Adhayapakon Kt Bhartl Aur Seva Ki Shorten) Niyamawali, 1987 and Uttar Pradesh Junior High School (Adhyapakon Aur Anya Karmachariyon Ke Vetan Ka Bhugtan) Adhiniyam. 1978 are the relevant provisions dealing with the appointment and payment of Salary to the Class III .and Class IV employees of Junipr High School governed under the U. P. Basic Education Act 1972. The provisions of Section 5 of tha U.P. Junior High School (Teachers and other Employees) (Payment of Salaries) Act, 1978 (here-in-after referred to as Act 1978), provides the complete procedure the payment of salary to the teachers and staff of Junior High School. The provisions of Section 5 of tha U.P. Junior High School (Teachers and other Employees) (Payment of Salaries) Act, 1978 (here-in-after referred to as Act 1978), provides the complete procedure the payment of salary to the teachers and staff of Junior High School. Provisions of Section 5 of the Act are quoted as under ; 5- dfri; laLFkkvksa dh fLFkfr esa osru dk Hkqxrku djus dh izfdz;k %& ( 1 ) izR;sd laLFkk dk izcU/krU= vius v/;kidksa vkSj deZpkfj;ksa ds osru dk forj.k djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fdlh vuqlwfpr cSad ;k fdlh lgdkjh cSad esa ,d i`Fkd~ ys[kk [kksysxk tks izcU/krU= ds fdlh izfrfuf/k vkSj f'k{kk&vf/kdkjh bl fufer izkf/kd`r djsa la;qDr :i ls ifjpkfyr fd;k tk;sxkA ijUrq ys[kk [kqy tkus ds i'pkr~ f'k{kk&vf/kdkjh ;fn mldk bl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu cuk;s x;s fdlh fu;e ds v/khu jgrs gq;s ;g lek/kku gks tk; fd yksd fgr esa ,slk djuk lewfpr gS] cSad dks ;g vuqns'k ns ldrk gS fd ys[ks dk ifjpkyu dsoy izcU/krU= ds izfrfuf/k }kjk fd;k tk;sxk vkSj ,sls vuqns'k dks fdlh Hkh le; fo[kf.Mr dj ldrk gSA ijUrq ;g vkSj fd mi/kkjk ( 2 ) ds ijUrqd esa fufnZ"V fLFkfr esa ;k tgkWa osru ds forj.k esa izcU/krU= dh fdlh pwd ds dkj.k dfBukbZ mRiUu gks ogkWa f'k{kk vf/kdkjh cSad dks ;g vuqns'k ns ldrk gS fd ys[ks dk ifjpkyu dsoy mlds }kjk ;k ,sls vU; vf/kdkjh }kjk ftls og bl fufer izkf/kd`r djsa] fd;k tk;sxkA vkSj ,sls vuqns'k dks fdlh Hkh le; fo[kf.Mr dj ldrk gSA ( 2 ) izcU/k mDr ys[ks esa ,sls fnukad rd ftls f'k{kk&vf/kdkjh lkekU; ;k fo'ks"k vkns'k }kjk fofufnZ"V djsa] Nk=ksa ls Qhl ds :i esa izkIr ,slh /kujkf'k dk tks jkT; ljdkj bl fufer lkekU; ;k fo'ks"k vkns'k ds vuqlkj vkSj tc rd ,slk vkns'k ugha gksrk rc rd fujh{kd ds funsZ'k ds vuqlkj vuqj{k.k fuf/k dk Hkkx gksrh gS] iPpklh izfr'kr ;k tgkWa jkT; ljdkj ;k jkT; ljdkj }kjk izkf/kd`r dksbZ vf/kdkjh forj.k fd;s tkus ds fy;s visf{kr /kujkf'k dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, fdlh mPprj izfr'kr dk funsZ'k ns ogkWa ,slk mPprj izfr'kr tSlk og funsZ'k ns] tek djsxkA ijUrq tgkWa Qhl dk mDr izfr'kr mi;qZDr izdkj ls tek u fd;k tk;] tgkWa f'k{kk&vf/kdkjh vkns'k }kjk izcU/krU= dks ik=ksa ls dksbZ Qhl olwy djus ls izfrfl) dj ldrk gS vkSj rnqijkUr f'k{kk&vf/kdkjh Qhl dks ;k rks laLFkk ds v/;kidksa ds ek/;e ls ;k ,slh vU; jhfr ls] tSlh og mfpr le>s lh/kh Nk=ksa ls olwy dj ldsxk vkSj bl izdkj olwy dh x;h Qhl dks mDr ys[ks esa tek djsaxkA ( 3 ) vuqj{k.k vuqnku dh leLr /kujkf'k vkSj fu%'kqYdrk vkSj vU; rRln`'k fj;k;rksa dh izfriwfrZ ds fy, vuqnku dh iPpklh izfr'kr ;k ,slh mPprj izfr'kr] ftls jkT; ljdkj ;k jkT; ljdkj }kjk izkf/kd`r vf/kdkjh bl fufeRr lkekU; ;k fo'ks"k vkns'k }kjk vo/kkfjr djs] /kujkf'k dk Hkh jkT; ljdkj }kjk mDr ys[ks esa Hkqxrku fd;k tk;sxkA ( 4 ) mDr ys[kk esa tek fd;s /ku dk iz;ksx fuEufyf[kr ds flok; fdlh iz;kstu ds fy;s ugha fd;k tk;sxkA vFkkZr~ %& ( d ) fu;r fnukad ds i'pkr~ fdlh vof/k ds fy;s ns gksus okys osru dk Hkqxrku] ( [k ) v/;kidksa vkSj deZpkfj;ksa ds Hkfo"; fuf/k ys[ks esa laLFkk dk va'knku] ;fn dksbZ gks] tek djuk vkSj izR;sd o"kZ tqykbZ ekl ds vUr esa laLFkk ds v/;kidksa vkSj deZpkfj;ksa ds ml vof/k ds] ftlds fy, Nk=ksa ls Qhl olwy dh tk pqdh gks] osru ds Hkqxrku lEcU/kh nkf;Ro dks iwjk djus ds i'pkr~ ys[ks esa vo'ks"k /kujkf'k dk ,slk va'k tks muds ,d ekl ds osru ds dqy ;ksx ls vf/kd gks] izcU/krU= dh laLFkk ij O;; ds fy, ns fn;k tk;sxkA ( x ) laLFkk ds iz;kstukFkZ ,slk vU; O;; tSlk jkT; ljdkj ;k mlds }kjk bl fufeRr izkf/kd`r vf/kdkjh }kjk funsZ'k fn;k tk;A ( 5 ) fdlh v/;kid ;k deZpkjh ds osru dk Hkqxrku mDr ys[kk ls mlh cSad esa mlds ys[kk esa ;fn dksbZ gks] /kujkf'k dk vUrj.k djds ;k ;fn mldk ml cSad esa dksbZ ys[kk u gks rks psd }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA ( 6 ) fdlh ,sls LFkku ds lEcU/k esa] tgkWa dksbZ vuqlwfpr cSad ;k lgdkjh cSad u gks] ogkWa bl /kkjk ds lEcU/k esa ifj"dkj ds lkFk ykxw gksaxs ftUgsa jkT; ljdkj vf/klwpuk }kjk fofufnZ"V djsa vkSj ml fLFkfr esa bl /kkjk esa cSad ds fy, funsZ'k fdlh Mkd?kj cpr ds izfr funsZ'k le>s tk;saxsA ( 7 ) izcU/krU= funs'kd dks izR;sd foRrh; o"kZ ds lEcU/k esa ,d fooj.kh vkxkeh 30 twu rd ,sls funsZ'k esa tSlk funs'kd lkekU; ;k fo'ks"k vkns'k }kjk fofufnZ"V djsa] izLrqr djsxkA 29. Section 3 of the said Act is quoted as under:- 3 & le; ds Hkhrj vizkf/kd`r dVkSfr;kWa fd;s fcuk osru dk Hkqxrku%& ( 1 ) fdlh izfrdwy lafonk ds gksrs gq, Hkh fu;r fnukad ds i'pkr~ fdlh vof/k ds lEcU/k esa fdlh laLFkk ds fdlh v/;kid ;k vU; deZpkjh dk osru ml ekl ds ftlds ;k ftlds fdlh Hkkx ds lEcU/k esa og ns; gks] Bhd i'pkr~&orhZ ekl ds chlosa fnu ;k mlls iwoZ ds ,sls fnu dh ftls jkT; ljdkj bl fufer lekU; ;k fo'ks"k vkns'k }kjk fu;r djsa] lekfIr ds iwoZ mls fn;k tk;sxkA ( 2 ) osru dk Hkqxrku mi/kkjk ( 3 ) ds micU/kksa ds v/khu jgrs gq,] fdlh izdkj dh dVkSfr;kWa flok; muds tks bl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu cuk;s x;s fu;eksa }kjk rRle; izo`r fdlh vU; fof/k }kjk izkf/kd`r gks fd;s fcuk] fd;k tk;sxkA ( 3 ) tgkWa fdlh laLFkk ds fdlh v/;kid ;k vU; deZpkjh ds osru dk Hkqxrku] izcU/krU= dh vksj ls fdlh pwd ds dkj.k mi/kkjk ( 1 ) ds vuqlkj ugha fd;k tkrk gS] ogkWa fujh{kd] bl vf/kfu;e ds fdlh micU/k ij izfrdwy izHkko Mkys fcuk] ml mi/kkjk esa mfYyf[kr fnukad ls nl fnu ds Hkhrj ,sls osru dk Hkqxrku] ;FkkfLFkfr ,sls v/;kid ;k deZpkjh }kjk vfUre vkgfjr osru dh nj ij vkSj ubZ fu;qfDr dh fLFkfr esa ml osru eku dh] ftl ij og fu;qDr fd;k x;k gks] U;wure nj ij] /kkjk 5 dh mi/kkjk ( 1 ) esa mfYyf[kr ys[ks esa tek /ku ls djsxk ;k djk;sxk vkSj ,sls Hkqxrku ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ lek;kstu] rRi'pkr~ ;Fkk'kh?kz fd;k tkosxkA 30. It is made clear that Section 1 (3) of the Act applicable to only such Junior High Schools which are included in the list of Institutions to be governed by provisions of the Act of 1978. The provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1978 provides the power of inspection of the Educational Institutions and enforcement about Payment of salary etc. after examining the record of Committee of Management of the Institution. The District Basic Education Officer is empowered to enforce the provisions of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 Rules and Regulations framed thereunder also, The provisions of the U.P. Recognised Basic School (Junior High School) (Condition of Services) Rules of 1984, service conditions of Class III and Class IV Junior High Schools provide for the procedure for appointment, selection, pay scale, termination etc. The perusal of the scheme shows that the District Basie Education Officer has been given ample powers to ensure the payment of salary to the teachers and staff of the Junior High Schools included and covered under the Payment of Salary Act, 1978. 31. From the discussions and facts narrated in the preceding paragraphs, an irrestible conclusion may be reached that a teaser and staff of the Junior High School claiming payment of salary under the Act of 1978 has to first approach the District Basic Education Officer who is fully competent and empowered under the Act to disburse salary, or to direct payment of salary to such teachers entitled to get salary under the Act. It is neither desirable nor permissible for this Court to examine and scrutinise the questions of fAct about the claims for payment of salary under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are of the opinion that the U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salary to the Teachers and other employees) Act, 1978 is a self-contained, exhaustive and is complete code in itself as for as the payment of salary to teachers and staff of the Junior High School is concerned, Which we are of the considered opinion that such petitioners have a statutory, and alternative remedy of making representations before the District Basic Education Officer and, as such, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, without exhausting the remedy provided under the Payment of Salary Act of 1978 deserve to be dismissed on ground of alternative remedy. C. M. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992 ; Bir Bhadra v. D.I.O.S. and others. 32. In this writ petition, the petitioner was given appointment as a cleric in pursuance of tho order passed In the writ petition filed by him ear liar. The High Court in the earlier writ petition, had directed the Committee of Management to appoint the petitioner, Bir Bhadra, under the Dying-in-harness Rules and G.O. of 1981 of the State Government. The petitioner claims that he has been working soon after his appointment but he has not been paid salary either from the Committee of Management or the District Inspector of Schools. C. M. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992, Mohd Shaheed v. District Baste Shiksha Adhikari and others. 33 The above petitioners. The petitioner claims that he has been working soon after his appointment but he has not been paid salary either from the Committee of Management or the District Inspector of Schools. C. M. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992, Mohd Shaheed v. District Baste Shiksha Adhikari and others. 33 The above petitioners. Mohd Shaheed, claimed to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher for teaching the junior classes from I to V at Mlfta-ul-Uloom, Chanpur, District Bijnor. It is stated that the appointment letter was issued to him on 21-12*1986 and be is working since the date of his appointment but has not been paid any salary. He has prayed for a writ/direction for payment of salary to him under the Act of 1978. 34. In the fact and circumstances narrated above in all the writ petitions, we consider it proper and appropriate to direct the District Inspector of Schools and District Basic Education Officer concerned, before whom such representations/applications for payment of salary by teachers and staff, namely, Class III and IV, are presented, to decide the representations are directed to decide by a reasoned and speaking order according to law within a period of 3 month from the date of receipt of such representations/applications and supply the copy of such decisions to the applicant. Further, we would like to observe that the liability of payment of salary to the teachers and staff is joint, namely, the Committee of Management of the institutions as also of the District Inspector of Schools/District Basic Education Officer, who are vested with ample supervisory powers under the respective Acts (Act No. 24 of 1971 of U.P., and Payment of Salary Act of 1978 aforesaid). It is, therefore, desirable for the authorities concerned to ensure the payment of &alary of teachers and staff who are not being paid their salaries by the date fixed according to the statutorily, though they are legally entitled for the same and if delay is caused due to default of the Committee of Management, the authorities concerned should not hesitate in initiating actions against such erring Committees of Management of the institutions concerned as provided under the statutes. 35. All the above mentioned writ petitions are accordingly dismissed in limini on the ground of alternative remedy. 35. All the above mentioned writ petitions are accordingly dismissed in limini on the ground of alternative remedy. However, the petitioners who have already availed statutory alternative remedy of making representations before the District Inspector of Schools or the District Basic Education Officer, as the case may be, their represent ions should be disposed of by the concerned authorities by a reasoned and speaking order as indicated in this judgment within 3 month from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order of this Court. In case other petitioners who have not filed representations as far, but they file tho same within 10 days of this order along with certified copy of this order, the same should also be disposed of by the concerned authorise with the same period and in the same manner as indicated above. The Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of this Judgment to the Director of Education, U.P., Lucknow, for getting it circulated amongst all the District Inspectors of Schools and the District Basic Education Officers of the State of U.P. for perusal and guidance. Certified copy of this judgment be also given to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within 3 days.