JUDGMENT R.B. Mehrotra, J. 1. In the above petitions all the petitioners have been appointed as Assistant Teachers or Lecturers in Intermediate Colleges on ad hoc basis in substantive vacancies after 14th of July, 1992. The appointments of these petitioners have been made by the Committee of Managements of various institutions in violation of the provisions of section 18 of the U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 as amended by U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992. Since the appointments of the petitioners have been made in violation of the provisions of U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992 substituting section 18 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982, in these group of petitions, the vires of U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992 have been challenged. IN writ petition No. 44474 of 1993, Bechan Prasad v. State of U. P. and others, Additional grounds have been urged by making an application, for amendments also challenging the vires of U. ?. Act No. 5 of 1982. 2. Sri A. N. Tripathi, learned Advocate appearing in writ petition No. 44474 of 1993 and Dr. R. G. Padia, learned counsel appearing in writ petition No. 29252 of 1993, Uittam Singh Negi and others v. District Inspector of Schools and others its well as in writ petition No. 44472 of 1993, Harish Mohan Khanduri v. District Inspector of Schools and others have submitted leading arguments. The counsel appearing in other writ petitions have adopted the arguments submitted by these counsels. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their contentions and Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, the learned Additional Advocate General defending the vires of the aforesaid Acts. 3. Since no factual controversy is Involved for consideration for deciding the vires of the provisions of the aforesaid Acts, it is not necessary to state the facts leading to the filing of the present writ petitions. It is suffice to say that the appointments of all the petitioners have been made in violation of section 18 of U. P. Act Ho. 5 of 1982 as substituted by U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992.. 4. It is suffice to say that the appointments of all the petitioners have been made in violation of section 18 of U. P. Act Ho. 5 of 1982 as substituted by U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992.. 4. Sri A. N. Tripathi has challenged the vires of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992 on the following grounds : (i) The provisions of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992 so far as they completely take away the rights of the Committee of Management to have any say in the matter of appointments of the teachers in the institutions, are violative of Article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India. (ii) The offending provisions of the aforesaid Acts" are violative of Article 300 (A) of the Constitution of India. (iii) The offending provisions of the aforesaid Acts are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (iv) The offending provisions of the aforesaid Act) are beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature, in the name of making Regulations for improving the standard of education the Legislature has completely taken away the petitioners' right to manage the institutions. i.e. to say the offending provisions of the aforesaid Acts have been enacted in colourable exercise of legislative power. Dr. R. G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in writ petition no. 29252 of 1993 and other connected petitions have mainly contended that U. P. Act No. 24 of 1(992 is violative of Article 254 (i) of the Constitution of India as no Presidential assent has been taken before enforcing the aforesaid Act, as such, the provisions of the said Acts to the extent they are inconsistent with the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, as they stood prior to the enforcement of the Constitution of India, are repugnant and void 5. Before examining the vires of the provisions of the aforesaid Acts, It is necessary to have a look on the legislative background leading to the enactment of the provisions of the Acts under challenge. 6. Before examining the vires of the provisions of the aforesaid Acts, It is necessary to have a look on the legislative background leading to the enactment of the provisions of the Acts under challenge. 6. U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 was passed as the Act for establishment of Board of High School and Intermediate Education for regulating and supervising the system of High School and Intermediate Education in Uttar Pradesh, which was earlier within the purview of the Allahabad University. The Board was constituted for prescribing courses of instructions to conduct examinations, to withhold and declare results and to submit to the State Government its views on any matter with which it is concerned as given in section-7 of the slid Act. There was no provision to control or regulate the service conditions of the teachers appointed in the institutions imparting High School and Intermediate education which were recognised by the Board, for the purposes of couducting the examinations and permitting the students studying in those institutions to appear in the examinations conducted by the Board. The society registered under the Societies Registration Act or Trust which has established and set up the educational institution were free to manage the affairs of the institutions and to exercise powers with regard to appointment and service condition of the teachers of the institutions through the Committee of Managements elected by the general body of the society without any restraint or obligation on them. By U. P. Act No. 35 of 1953, the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 were drastically amended. By section-7 of the said amending Act which came into force on January 23, 1999, sections-16A to 16 I were added in U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 192t (U. P. Act No. 2 of 1921 Section-8 of the: aforesaid amending Act authorised the State Government to promulgate regulations in respect of matters covered by lections 16A to section 16 I. 7. The effect of section 16A to section 161, which were added to U. P. Act No. 2 of 1921, was that it was provided that for every institution, there shall be a scheme of administration, which shall amongst other matters provide for the constitution of a Committee of Management vested with authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the institutions and which shall describe the powers, duties and functions of the Head Master or the Principal and of the committee of managements in relations the institions; and that the Head Master or the Principal of the Institution and two teachers thereof selected by rotation according to seniority shall be ex officio members of the Committee with a right to vote A provisions was also made in the Act authorising the Director to inspect the recognised institutions and to remove the defects or deficiencies found on inspection or otherwise and if the Management fails to comply with any direction, the Director, may after considering the explanation or representation, if any, given or made by the Management, refer the case to the Board for withdrawal of recognition or recommend to the State Government to proceed against the institution. The Sate Government in its turn, of satisfied that the affairs of the institutions are being mismanaged or the Management of the Institution has wilfully and persistently failed in the performance of its duty or the institution is being conducted otherwise then in accordance with the scheme of administration, the State Government may appoint an Authorised Controller for running the Management of the institution. The qualifications for appointment of the teacher and the Head Master were also prescribed in pursuance of the provisions of the aforesaid Act the appointment, termination of the Head of the institution and teachers were also brought under the supervision of the State Authorities. The absolute power of appointing any person as a teacher and terminating any teacher duly appointed was taken away from the Committee of Management of the institutions, and statutory provisions were made for constituting the Committee of Managements in accordance with the provisions under the prescribed scheme of administration. 8. The validity of U. P. Act: No. 35 of 1958 was challenged on the ground that the provisions of the aforesaid Act are violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (c), 19 (1) (f) and 31 of the Constitution of India. 8. The validity of U. P. Act: No. 35 of 1958 was challenged on the ground that the provisions of the aforesaid Act are violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (c), 19 (1) (f) and 31 of the Constitution of India. In Katra Educational Society, Allahabad v. State of U. P., AIR 1966 SC 1307 , Honourable Supreme Court repelled the contentions challenging the vires of the aforesaid Act and upheld the validity of the said Act holding that the provisions have been made in the interest of the students of the institutions and for maintaining the standard of education. The contention raised by the Katra Educational Society, that since the amendment Act has encroached upon the right of the Society to manage the institutions established by it as such, the provisions are beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature was also repelled and it was held that the State Legislature under Entry 11 of List II of 7th Schedule of the: Constitution is competent to enact any statute imposing restrictions on the Management of the educational institutions in the matter relating to education The argument raised on behalf of the Society that the Act is violative of Article 19 (I) (c) of the Constitution of India was also repelled in the aforesaid decision. U. P. High School and (Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of teachers and other employees) Act. 1971 (U. P. Act No. 24 of !971) was enacted by the State Legislature and the assent of the Governor was received for the said Act or 29th August, 1971 which was published in U. P. Gazette on 30th of August, 1971. The State Legislature enacted the said Act to regulate the payment of salary to teachers and other employees of High School 3nd Intermediate Colleges receiving aid out of the State fund for matter connected therewith. The objecta and reasons of the aforesaid Act stated that since there have been frequent) complaints that salaries of teachers and other employees of aided non-government higher secondary schools are not disbursed in time, which results in hardship to those employees, instructions issued to the Managements of such institutions from time to time have not been effective. In order to remove this hardship and eusure a regular and timely payment of salary where there are default, it has been decided to bring suitable leglslaution. In order to remove this hardship and eusure a regular and timely payment of salary where there are default, it has been decided to bring suitable leglslaution. Under section 3 of the aforesaid Act, it was provided that after the 31st day of March, 1971, the salary of teachers and other employees of an institution shall be paid to them on the date prescribed in the month by the State Government. Thereafter the salary of the teachers and employees of the institutions which were in the grant in aid of the State Government were paid by the State' exchequer. A provision was made in the Act, that 80% of the tution fee received from the institutions will be deposited in the State Exchequer and in turn the State Government took responsibility to make payment of the salary to all the teachers and employees of the institutions which were receiving grant in aid from the Government. 9. U. P. Act No. 2 of 1921 and U. P. Act No 24 of 1971 were further amended by U. P. Act No. 26 of' 1975. By U. P. Act No. 26 of 1975 the provisions of section 16E and section 16F as incorporated by U. P. Act No 35 of 1958 in U. P Act No. 2 of 1921 were further amended. It was provided by U. P. Act No. 26 of 1975 that for selection of candidates for appointment as a head of an institution and for the appointment of the teachers, three experts nominated by the Regional Deputy Director of Education from the persons not belonging to the district in which the institution is situate, out of the panel prepared under the section, in the case of the head of the institution, and three expjrts nominated by the Inspector in the case of the appointment of the teachers of the institutions shall mandatorily be represented in the Selection Committee constituted under the provisions of the aforesaid section 16F as added by U. P. Act No. 26 of 1975 Various other provisions were' added by the aforesaid Act regulating the appointment of the teachers and the head of the institutions and the manner in which the appointments were to be made. The role of the Management of the institutions in the matters of the appointment was further curtailed and only two representatives of the Management were contemplated In the Selection Committee which was to be constituted under section 16F as added by U. P. Act no 26 of 1975. Under Regulation 10 of Chapter-II of the Regulats has framed under U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, a detailed procedure is provided that the selection of the teachers and head of the institution shall be made by the Selection Committee on 'he basis of quality points marks. The quality points marks were again prescribed in the appendix and the quality point: marks were fired on the basis of the division received by each candidate in various examinations. This further reduced the scope of any arbitrary selection in the matter of appointment of teachers and head of the institution in High School and Intermediate Colleges which were controlled by various Societies through their Committee of Managements. 10. U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982) received the assent of the President on 25-2-1982, which was published in U. P. "Extra Ordinary Gazette dated 26-2-1982. The aforesaid Act replaced U. P. Ordinance No. 8 of 1981. The statement of objects and reasons of the aforesaid Act relevant for the purposes of the present matter is being extracted below : "The appointment of teachers in secondary institutions recognised by the Board of High Schools and Intermediate Education was governed by the Intermediate Education Act. 1921 and Regulations made thereunder. It was felt that the selection of teachers under the provisions of the said Act and the regulations was sometime not free and fair. Besides, the field of selection was also very much restricted. This adversely affected the availability of suitable teachers and the standard of education. It was. therefore, considered necessary to constitute Secondary Education Service Commission at the State level to select Principals. Lecturers, Head-Masters and L. T. Grade Teachers, and Secondary Education Selection Boards at the Regional Level, to select and make available suitable candidates for comparatively lower posts in C.T./J.T.C/B T.C. Grades for such institutions." Section 16 of UP. It was. therefore, considered necessary to constitute Secondary Education Service Commission at the State level to select Principals. Lecturers, Head-Masters and L. T. Grade Teachers, and Secondary Education Selection Boards at the Regional Level, to select and make available suitable candidates for comparatively lower posts in C.T./J.T.C/B T.C. Grades for such institutions." Section 16 of UP. Act No. 5 of 1982 provided that every appointment of a teacher on the post of Principal of an Intermediate College, Lecturer of an Intermediate College, Head Master of a High School, trained Graduate Grade teachers of Higher Secondary Schools, shall be made by the Committee of Managements only on the recommendations of Secondary Education Service Commission constituted under U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982. Likewise, a provision was made that every appointment of a teacher other than the aforesaid appointment, shall be made by the Management only on the recommendations of the Board constituted under U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982. 11. The validity of U. P. Ordinance No. 3 of 1981 which was substituted by U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 was challenged in this Court. In Siyaram Shakya v. State of U. P., 1982 UP' LB EC 324, a Division Bench of this Court upheld the validity of the aforesaid Ordinance and held that the Ordinance, has a laudable object for establishing a Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards, for selection of teachers in the institutions. This has been done to find out the best of those who are entitled to be appointed as teachers. The obvious purpose is the benefit of the students the State in a democratic set up is vitally interested in securing a healthy system of education for its coming generation, as such, the Ordinance had been issued to achieve that purpose. The Division Bench held that the Ordinance is within the legislative competence of the State legislature. The argument that the Ordinance is bad for not obtaining the Presidential essent was specifically repelled by the Divisional Bench of this Court. The Division Bench held that the Ordinance is within the legislative competence of the State legislature. The argument that the Ordinance is bad for not obtaining the Presidential essent was specifically repelled by the Divisional Bench of this Court. The relevant portion of the said judgment is being reproduced below : "Entry No. 25 of List-III amended by the Constitution (Forty second Amendment) Act, under which the impugned Ordinance has been promulgated, reads as under :- 'Education including technical education medical education and Universities subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65, 66 of List I, vocation end technical training of labour". The to gugned Ordinance is in regard to the aforesaid field of education, which was within the competence of the State Legislature Nothing was pointed out before us to show that the provisions of the earlier law made by the Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter covers the field on which the impugned Ordinance has been promulgated. Therefore, there was no question of obtaining the assent of the President under Article 254 of the Constitution." 12. The Division Bench also repelled the contention of the Management that it has been completely deprived of the Management of the Institution. The relevant portion of the same judgment is also being quoted for reference ; "Reading these provisions together, and other relevant in that connection, it would be found that the Ordinance has not totally excluded the Management. It may be that in the matter of selection, the Management may not have the same voice when it has before the promulgation of the Ordinance, but that by itself does not invalidate the Ordinance. Even before passing of the Ordinance the Scheme provided for recruitment required approval of the District Inspector of Schools. If the selection made was not approved, the Management could rot appoint the person selected by it. The difference in the procedure now made is aimed at for avoiding favouritism and for finding out the best suited persons for the Job the composition of the Commission in the case that appointment is- to be made to bring the matter of appointment above party politics. The difference in the procedure now made is aimed at for avoiding favouritism and for finding out the best suited persons for the Job the composition of the Commission in the case that appointment is- to be made to bring the matter of appointment above party politics. Amongst other, the Commission shall be comprised of a member of the judicial service as well as a professor of a University." Section 18 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982, as it was originally enacted, is being reproduced below :- "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 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 persons possessing qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made thereunder (2) The provisions sub-section (1) shall also apply to the appointment of a teacher (other than a teacher specified in the Schedule) on ad hoc basis with the substitution of the expression 'Board' for the expression "Commission". (3) Every appointment of an ad hoc teacher under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) cease to have effect from the earliest of the following dates, namely-- (a) when the candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board, as the case rosy toe, joins the post; (b) when the period of one month referred to in sub-section (4) of section I! expires. (c) thirtieth day of June following the date of such ad hoc appointment. 13. The section 18, referred to above, of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 was enacted for emergency purposes to meet a situation where the Commission or the Board, as the case may be, failed to make appointments within the period specified in the aforesaid section. However, no procedure was prescribed in the Rules framed under U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 for making ad hoc appointments under section 33 of the Act. 14. However, no procedure was prescribed in the Rules framed under U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 for making ad hoc appointments under section 33 of the Act. 14. Realising these difficulties, the State Government exercising powers under section 33 of U. P. Act No 5 of 1982, issued various Removal of Difficulties Order. The First Removal of Difficulties Order, was however, issued even before the commencement of the Act and after promulgation of U. P. Secondary Education Service Commissiou and Selection Board. Ordinance, 1981 (U. P. Ordinance No. 8 of 1981) For convenience, the aforesaid Removal of Difficulties Order is being described as 'First Removal of Difficulties' Order. A detailed procedure was prescribed for filling up the vacancies on ad hoc basis in First Removal of Difficulties Order. Since the controversy in the present matter relates to the appointments made by direct recruitment, the procedure prescribed for making ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment, as provided in parapraph-5 of First Removal of Difficulties Order is being quoted below : "5. Ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment-(1) Where any vacancy cannot be filled by promotion under paragraph 4, the same may be filled by direct recruitment in accordance with clause (2) to (5;. (2) The management shall as soon as may be, inform the District Inspector of School about the details of the vacancy and such Inspector shall invite applications from the local Employment Exchange and also through public advertisement in at least two news papers having adequate circulation in Uttar Pradesh. (3) Every application referred to in clause (2) shall, be addressed to the District Inspector of School and shall be accompanied : (a) by a crossed postal order worth ten rupees payable to such Inspector; (a) by a self-addressed envelope bearing postal stamp for purposes of registration. (4) The District Inspector of Schools snail cause the best candidates selected on the basis of quality points specified in Appendix. The compilation of quality points may be done on remunerative basis by the retired Gazetted Government servants under the personal supervision of such Inspector. (5) If more than one teacher of the same subject or category is to be recruited for more than one institution, the names of the selected teachers and the names of the institutions shall be arranged in Hindi alphabetical order. (5) If more than one teacher of the same subject or category is to be recruited for more than one institution, the names of the selected teachers and the names of the institutions shall be arranged in Hindi alphabetical order. The candidate whose name appears on the top of the list shall be allotted to the institution the name whereof appears on the top of the list of the institution. This processes shall be repeated till both the lists are exhausted. Explanation-In relation to an institution imparting instruction to women that the expression "District Inspector of Schools" shall mean the "Regional Inspectiess of Girls Schools". A bare reading of paragraph (4) will demonstrate that even for filling up the ad hoc vacancies the magement was only supposed to inform the District Inspector of Schools about the details of the vacancies and the District Inspector of Schools was to invit applications and was to ensure that the best candidate is selected on the basis of the quality points specified in the appendix. The management of the College had no role to play even in the matter of ad hoc appointments on the post which came within the purview Secondary Education Service Commission or Selection Board under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982. However, it was realised that despite of all the above precautions and legislative enactments, a lot of bungling is being done in the matter of ad hoc appointments of teachers in the Intermediate Colleges in substantive vacancies and also in short term vacancies and accordingly, the State Legislature of both the Houses proposed the enactment of (J. P. Sscoadary Edueatioa Services Commission, and Selection Board (Amendment) Bill, 1992 In the aforesaid Bill the provision of section 13 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 was completely deleted and U. P. Higher Secondary Education Services Commission itself was to be substituted by the Board, as it was realised that U. P. Higher Secondary Education Services Commissiou is not effectively functioning. A drastic change in the constitution of Selection Board was also proposed in the aforesaid Bill. A drastic change in the constitution of Selection Board was also proposed in the aforesaid Bill. The said Bill was, forwarded for the assent of the President and it was expected that the Presidential assent will be: received at an early date, but expectations of the State Legislature were belied and the Presidential assent for U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Bill, 1992 remained pending consideration for considerable time. Since a drastic amendment was proposed in the matter of appointment of teachers upto Intermediate Colleges by U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (amendment) Bill. 1992, all ad hoc appointments of the teachers in the Intermediate Colleges were stopped by the State Government. This resulted in un-expected increase in the number of vacancies of teachers, which hampered smooth teaching work in the State. In order to overcome this situation, initially the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Ordinance, 1992 (U. P. Ordinance No. 21 of 1992) was promulgated by the Governor of U. P. on 14-7-1992. Later on, the said Ordinance was substituted by U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992. The U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992 substituted section 13 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982. The substituted section is being reproduced below : "18. Ad hoc teachers-(1) Where the management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the post of such teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months, the management may appoint by direct recruitment or promotion a teacher, on purely ad hoc basis, in the manner hereinafter provided in this section. (2) A teacher, other than a Principal or Headmaster, who is to be appointed by direct recruitment, may be appointed on the recommendation of the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (9). (2) A teacher, other than a Principal or Headmaster, who is to be appointed by direct recruitment, may be appointed on the recommendation of the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (9). (3) A teacher, other than a Principal or Headmaster, who is to be appointed by promotion, may in the manner prescribed be appointed by promoting the senior most teacher possessing prescribed qualifications- (a) in the trained graduate's grade, as a lecturer, in the case of a vacancy in lecurer's grade ; (b) in the Certificate of Teaching grade, as a teacher in the trained graduate's grade, in the case of vacancy in trained graduate's grade, (4) A vacancy in the post of a Principal may be filled by promoting the seniormost teacher in the lecturer's grade. (5) A vacancy in the post of a Headmaster may be filled by promoting the seniormost teacher in the trained graduate's grade. (6) For the purposes of miking appointments under sub-sections (2) and (3), the Management shall determine the number of vacancies, as also the number of vacancies to be reserved for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other categories of persons in accordance with the rules or orders issued by the State Government in this behalf. If in determining the vacancies it is found that persons belonging to such categories are not holding such number of posts as should have been held by them in accordance with such rules or orders, then the vacancies shall be determined that first and every alternate vacancy shall be reserved for the persons of such categories until the required percentage of posts is held by them. (7) After determining the number of vacancies as provided in sub-section (6) the Management shall within fifteen days for the date of the commencement of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and selection Board (Second Amendment) Act, 1992 intimate the vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment to the District Inspector of Schools. If the Management fails to intimate such Vacancies within the said period of fifteen days, the District Inspector of Schools may, after verification from such institution or from his own records, determine such vacancies himself. (8) The District Inspector of Schools shall, on receipt of intimation of vacancies or as the case may be, after determining the vacancies under subsection (7). (8) The District Inspector of Schools shall, on receipt of intimation of vacancies or as the case may be, after determining the vacancies under subsection (7). invite applications, from the persons possessing qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations, made thereunder, for adhoc appointment to the post of teachers, other than principal or Hedmasters in such manner as may be prescribed. (9) (a) For each district, there shall be a Selection of candidates for adhoc appointment by direct recruitment comprising, (1) District Inspector of Schools, who shall be the Chairman, (ii) Basic Shiksha Adhikari. (iii) District Inspector of Girls" Schools, and where there is no such Inspectors, the Principal of the Government Girls' Intermediate College and where there are more than one such college, the Seniormost Principal of such College and where their is no such Colleges, the Principal of the Government Girls Intermediate College as nominated by the State Government. (b) The Selection Committee constituted under clause (a) shall make selection of the candidates, prepare and list of the selected candidates, allocate them to the institutions and recommend their names to the Magistrate for appointment under sub-section (2). (c) The criteria and procedure for selection of candidates and the manner of preraration of list of selected candidates and their allocation to the institutions shall be such as may be prescribed. (10) Every appointment of an ad hoc teacher under sub-section (1) shall cease to have effect from the date when the candidate recommended by the Commission of the Board joins the post. (11) The provision is of section 21-D shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the teachers who are to be appointed under the provisions of this section. 3. Repeal and Saving-(1) The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Ordinance, 1992 (U. P. Ordinance no. 21 of 1992 is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the provisions of the Principal Act, as amended by the Ordinance referred to ire sub-section (1). shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provision of the Principal Act, as amended by this Act, as if the provisions of this Act were in force at all material times." 15. shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provision of the Principal Act, as amended by this Act, as if the provisions of this Act were in force at all material times." 15. A close scrutiny of the provisions of substituted section-18 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 shows that only two changes have been made for the purposes of making appointments on substantive vacancies of ad hoc teachers by the said section. The first change is that earlier under First Removal of Difficulties Order, it was provided that substantive vacancy on ad hoc basis is to be filled invariably by promoting a qualified teacher working in the institution and direct appointment was to be made only in a situation where no qualified teacher was available for promotion. This procedure has been given away by substituted section 18 which is under challenge in the present group of petitions. Sub-section (6) of substituted section 18 provide that the Committee of Management shall determine the number of vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment and by promotion and also will determine the vacancies reserved for the candidates belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and other categories for which the posts are reserved by the Government order. The other change brought in by the substituted section is that by earlier procedure the Committee of Management was to make appointments at the asking of the District Inspector of Schools alone, who was supposed to make selection under First Removal of Difficulties Order on the basis of quality point marks. By substituted section 18 (9) a wide based Committed has been constituted for selecting the teachers according to the procedure prescribed, but since no procedure has been prescribe so far, the procedure already prescribed by First Removal of Difficulties Or st of making appointments on the basis of the quality point marks should continue. On this analysis, it is clear that in the impugned section, the any of the Management in the matter of appointment of ad hoc teachers in the Institution has increased. On this analysis, it is clear that in the impugned section, the any of the Management in the matter of appointment of ad hoc teachers in the Institution has increased. Earlier, the Management was under an obligation to make appointments only by promotion of qualified teachers, now she procedure is that on the basis of quota fixed for making appointment by promotion and by direct recruitment, the Committee will determine the vacancies and will intimate the same to the District Inspector of Schools who will proceed with the selection of the candidates to be appointed on ad hoc basis of teachers by direct recruitment. The substituted section in no way reduces the role of Management in the matter of appointment of teachers on ad hoc basis in the Institution. It may also be noticed that U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Bill, 1992 has also received the Presidential assent now which has become an Act, being U., P. Act No. 1 of 1993. In U. P. Act No. 1 of 1993, section IS of the Principal Act has been deleted. In the amended Act, there is no section 18, as such, there is no power of making ad hoc appointment under U. P. Act Mo. 1 of 1983 and by substituted section 16, all appointments are to be made by the Management only on the recommendations of the Board, which means that even ad hoc appointments are to be made only on the recommendations of the Board. However, the provisions deleting section 18 have not yet been enforced and for interagnum the substituted section 18, subsists. 16. With the aforesaid legislative background, the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners, challenging the vires of the aforesaid Act are to be considered. Its contention is that the offending provisions are violative of Article 19 (I) (c) of the Constitution of India The submission is that the right to form association includes the right to establish an educational Institution and to manage the said Institution in the manner (he association of the society wants to run the educational institution. Its contention is that the offending provisions are violative of Article 19 (I) (c) of the Constitution of India The submission is that the right to form association includes the right to establish an educational Institution and to manage the said Institution in the manner (he association of the society wants to run the educational institution. The State can only placa reasonable restriction of the functioning of such association or the society running the educational institutions, In the name of imposing reasonable restriction, the society cannot be deprived of its right to have a say in the matter of appointing teachers for running its educational Institution, as the society can manage to run its institution by qualified teachers. The qualification of the teachers can be prescribed but who 'is the best teacher for impart. Sng education is the concern of the socity managing the educational Institution and by taking away this right the impugned enactments have infringed the petitioners' right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (c). In support of this contention, the petitioners' counsel has relied upon the following decisions : (1) Smt. Damayanti Naranga v. The Union of India, AIR 19/1 SC 966. (2) O. K. Ghosh v. E. X. Joseph, AIR 1965 SC 812. 17. This submission was repelled long back by the Supreme Court in Katra Society case (supra), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that for maintaining the standard of the education, the State can make provisions for prescribing the qualifications of the teachers and also can make provisions for ensuring that the most suitable and talented teacher is employed and the Management of the Society or the Committee of Management cannot be left to its sweet will to appoint any person of its choice. The matter was again considered by a Division Bench of this Court while examining the validity of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 in Sivaram Sakya case (supra) wherein this Court considered this argument and held. "It is wrong to suggest that the Management has been totally excluded from in the appointment of teachers. Sub-section (1) of Section 18 lays down that for the purpose of making appointment of a teacher specified in the Schedule, the Management shall notify the vacancy to the Commission in such manner and through such officer 07 authority as may be prescribed. Sub-section (1) of Section 18 lays down that for the purpose of making appointment of a teacher specified in the Schedule, the Management shall notify the vacancy to the Commission in such manner and through such officer 07 authority as may be prescribed. After the Commission selects a person, it is the Management which shall have power under sub-section (4) of Section 11 to issue appointment letters to the candidates whose name has been intimated under sub-section of Section 11." 18. This question with slightly another angle has again recently been considered by Honourable Supreme Court in Unni ' Krishnan J. P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh. AIR 1993 SC 2178 . The relevant para 69 of the judgment is being quoted as hereunder : "It is not more an establishment of educational institution that is urged by the petitioners, but to run the educational institution dependent on recognition by the State. There is absolutely no fundamental right to recognition in any citizen. The right to establish and run the educational institution with State's recognition arises only on the State premitting, pursuant to a policy decision or on the fulfilment of the conditions of the State. Therefore where it is dependent on the permission under the Statute or the exercise of an executive power, it cannot qualify to be a foudamental right. Then again, the State policy may dictate a different course." The essence of the matter that if a Society running an educational Institution seeks recognition of the Institution by the State Authority then the State Authority will grant recogntion to such educational Institution on the conditions prescribed by the State Government. Such conditions can be prescribed in the matters of appointment of the teachers and the admission of the students. The provisions of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992 apply only to those Institutions, which are recognised under Section-2 (d) of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. These conditions are part of the conditions of recognition granted to such Institutions. It is open to any society to run the Institution of its choice but once the Society or the Committee of Management seeks recognition of such Institutions by the State Government, the State Government will prescribe conditions for such recognition. These conditions are part of the conditions of recognition granted to such Institutions. It is open to any society to run the Institution of its choice but once the Society or the Committee of Management seeks recognition of such Institutions by the State Government, the State Government will prescribe conditions for such recognition. By the impugned enactments the selection of the teachers to be appointed in the educational Institution recognised by the State Government or by the Board consituted under U. P. Intermediate Education Act is regulated, the Management ultimately remains the appointing authority and appointment, of teachers, is be to made on the basis of the selection held under the procedure prescribed in the impugned enactments. It is necessary for the benefit of students and for maintaining standard of education, that the State should ensure that most qualified and best talented persons are appointed for teaching the students. The [procedure prescribed by the aforesaid provision is essentialy an endeavour to the said end. No fault can be found in the impugned provisions, as it ensures an independent machinery for making selection of touchers on permanent basis as well as on ad hoc basis. The procedure prescribed by the aforesaid enactment only takes care that best talent available throughout the State should be appointed on the post of vital importance of imparting education to the students, studying in the educational Institutions. In fact the State has responsibility to ensure that the best talented persons impart education to its students, who are to be the future responsible citizens of the country. By U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982, the Management was excluded only from the process of selection of teachers to be appointed in the Institution imparting secondary and Higher Secondary education. A commission was constituted constituting of persons of exposition of eminence in Judicial Service, the persons of eminence in State Education Service and Professors of the Universities or Principals of the Colleges affiliated with the Universities not having less than 10 years experience, or principals of Intermediate 'College having an experience of not less than 15 years. This was a highly expertised body which was to make selection of teachers under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982. This was a highly expertised body which was to make selection of teachers under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982. In the selection process of teachers, the representative of the Management was excluded, as the representative of the Management ordinarily is not supposed to be an expert in the matter of selection of teachers neither he is supposed to have any experience or specialised knowledge in the matter of teaching. Normally the inclusion of the representative of the Committee of Management in the matter of selection was found to be irrelevant and many times it was resulting in undue inter fence by the representative of the Management In the matter of selection. Considering these factors the Legislature intervend to ensure that by fair and impartial selection the best telent is made available to be appointed as a teacher in the Intermediate College. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that by impugned provisions the Legislature has encroached on the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (I) (c) of the Constitution of India, is totally misconceived and is hereby rejected. 19. IIND contention of the petitioners' counsel is that the provisions of the aforeseaid Act violate the petitioners' right guranted under Article-300A of the Constitution of India. Article 300A piovid;s that no person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. By the impugned provisions the property of the Societies, which are running the educational Institutions, is not interfered with in any manner, whatosever." The impugned provisions of the Act only regulate the selection, and appointment of teachers in the Intermediate Colleges The said submission is wholly misconceived and without any force and is accordingly rejected. The decisions relied upon by the petitioners' counsel in support of his contention have no bearing in the matter. 20. Rejecting the contention that running of educational Institutions can be said to be occupation or trade the Honourable Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan's case (Supra) held : "We are certainly of the opinion that such activity can neither be a trade or business nor can it be a profession within the meaning of Article 19 (1) (g)- Trade or business normally connotes an activity carried on with a profit motive. Education has never been commerce in this country. Making it one is opposed to the ethos, tradition and sensibilities of this nation. Education has never been commerce in this country. Making it one is opposed to the ethos, tradition and sensibilities of this nation. The arguments to the contrary has an unholy ring to it. Imparting of education has never been treated as a trade ok business in this country since times immemorial. It has been treated as a religious duty. It has been treated as a charitable activity. But never as trade or business. We agree with Gajendragadkar. J that "education in its true aspect is more a mission and a vocation rather than a profession or trade or business, however, wide may be the denotation of the two latter words..." Third contention is that the provisions of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as they are arbitrary. The petitioners' counsel has relied upon the following decisions in support of his contention :- (1) E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555 . (2) M/s Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 . (3) Ajai Hashia v. Khalid Mujib Suhravardy, AIR 1981 SC 487 . 21. This argument also deserves to be rejected. As discussed above, by the impugned provisions, only a fair and impartial selection of best talents available in the State for appointment of teachers in the Intermediate Colleges is being made. There is no arbitrariness in the aforesaid provisions. The provisions have been made in the Interest of students and in the interest of the education the counsel has failed to point out any arbitrariness in the impugned provisions. 22. The last submission of Sri A. N. Tripathi, that the provisions of the impugned Act are colourable exercise of powers, as by the impugned provisions the Society, which establishes the Institution has become defunct and has no say in the matter of running the Institution, as such, in the name of regulating the stanadard of education, the entire powers of the Management have been taken away. Sri Tripathi has placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his above contention : - (1) K. C. Gajapati Narain Deo v. State of Orissa, AIR 19S3 SC 375. (2) The State of Vindhya Pradesh v. Mordhwaj Singh, AIR 1968 SC 796. (3) R. S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills, AIR 1977 SC 2270 . (4) Dr. Sri Tripathi has placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his above contention : - (1) K. C. Gajapati Narain Deo v. State of Orissa, AIR 19S3 SC 375. (2) The State of Vindhya Pradesh v. Mordhwaj Singh, AIR 1968 SC 796. (3) R. S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills, AIR 1977 SC 2270 . (4) Dr. D. C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 579. Colourable exercise of power is one where actual object of the exercise of power is different, unauthorised and unconstitutional. 23. An analysis of the provisions of U. P. Act No. 3 of 1992 shows that the Management of the Institution is still the appointing authority of the teachers in the Intermediate Colleges. The appointment is to be made ultimately by the Management on the basis of the selection of teachers held in accordance with the provisions of the impugned Act. The Management continuess to have every control over its Institution and the Management continues to have powers to punish the guilty teachers, only a safeguard has been provided that the Management does not arbitraily act in the matter of awarding punishment to the teachers of its Institution. The argument of colourable exercise of powers is against patently misconceived and is rejected. The decisions relied by the counsel for the petitioners have no bearing in the context of the present case. 24. It may also be noticed that the validity of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 has already been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. The additional points urged by Sri V. N. Tripathi have no substance and are hereby rejected. So far as the vires of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1992 is concerned, it has already been discussed that by the provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1992, the Management's role in the matter of selection of teachers has increased and the role of District Inspector of Schools has been conferred on the Committee constituted by Sub-section (9) under substituted section-18. By U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982, the Management was excluded from the process of selection of teachers to be made on permanent basis and also on adhoc basis in substantive vacancies U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992 has only substituted Section 18 of the Principal Act and the only material change has been brought in by the said Section is that a Committee at the district level has been constituted for the selection of the teachers in the High School and Intermediate Colleges. No provision has been made by U. P. Act No 24 of 1992 which in any way affects the rights of the Committee of Management to manage the Institution. However, by U. P. Act No 24 of 1992 only the selection of teachers in the substantive vacancies on ad hoc basis is to be made by a Committee constituted under the Act. As already discussed, the Management can have Hardly any effective say in the process of selection of teachers, which is an expertised job. The Legislature has taken care that the teachers are selected on the basis of their academic performance, as the quality point marks are awarded to a candidate on the basis of his academic performance. Even under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992, as it stands, the appointments are to be made on ad hoc basis on the basis of the quality point marks only to ensure fairness in the matter of selection a larger body, has been constituted and instead of District Inspector of Schools, the selection has been entrusted to more representative body. This is to further ensure fairness in the procedure of selection of teachers. It does not in any manner cause any prejudice to the Society running the Institutions for maintaining the standard of education. 25. In this connection it is also pertinent to notice that by U. P. Act No 24 of 1971, the entire responsibility for payment of salary of teachers and employees of the Institution has been taken over by the State Government Tne Management has nothing to contribute towards the salary of its employees. 25. In this connection it is also pertinent to notice that by U. P. Act No 24 of 1971, the entire responsibility for payment of salary of teachers and employees of the Institution has been taken over by the State Government Tne Management has nothing to contribute towards the salary of its employees. Since the Status Government has taken all these burden of ensuring payment of salary to the teachers, it becomes also the duty of the State Government to ensure that the best suitable talent in the State is appointed for teaching the students and for achieving the aforesaid object. the process of selection of teachers is] controlled by an independent body constituting of responsible Government servants and the sufficient safeguard having been provided in the procedure in the matter of appointment of teachers, no fault can be found with the system merely on the ground that the Management has been excluded to have its say in the matter of selection of teachers in the High School and Intermediate. Colleges. It does not make any difference as to wherther the appointment is to be made on permanent basis or on ad hoc basis in substantive vacancies. 26. Now the contentions raised by Dr. Padia require to be considered. The main submission of Dr. Padia is that since U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992 has not received the assent of the President, it is void to the extent it is repugnant to the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as It stood prior to its amendment in the year 1958. The word 'existiog law' has been defined under Article 366. sab-clause (1) of the Constitution of India. The word 'existiog law' has been defined under Article 366. sab-clause (1) of the Constitution of India. For convenient reference, Article 254 (1), 254 (2) and 366 (10) are being reproduced below :- "254(1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature by a State it repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. 254 (2) Where a law made by the Legislature of State with respect to one of the enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter then the law no made by the Legisature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the; consideration of the president and has received his assent, prevail in that State ; Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State. 366 (10) 'existing law' means any law. Ordinance, order, by law, rule or regulation passed or made before the commencement of this Constitution by any Legislature, authority or person having power to make such a law, Ordinance, order, by-law, rule or regulation." 27. U. P. Act no. 2 of 1921 amended from time to time, as it existed before the enforcement of the Constitution was no doubt au existing law', however, by U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992 only Section-18 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 has been amended. U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 is not an existing law as such, U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992 does not make any provision which is repugnant to an existing law. U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 is not an existing law as such, U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992 does not make any provision which is repugnant to an existing law. In U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which is an existing law, there was no provision providing for the selection of the teachers in the High School and Intermediate Colleges. The selection of teachers was regulated for the first time by U. P. Act No. 35 of 1958, amending U. P, Intermediate Education Act. Subsequently, various amendments have been made in this connection regulating the selection of the teachers in High School and Intermediate Colleges which are recoginised under section-2 (d) of U. P. Intermediate Education Act 28. In Siyaram Sakya case (Supra) the Division Bench of this Court has already repelled this submission The Court held that the provisions of U. P Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Ordinance, 1981 (U. P. Ordinance No. 8 of 1981) are not repugnant to any existing law, therefore, it was not necessary to take a Presidential assent for the promulgation of the aforesaid Ordinance. Dr. Padia has failed to point out, as to how U P. Act No. 24 of 1992, substituting Section-18 of the Principal Act makes a provision, which is repugnant to any existing law. In fact, the submission of Dr. Padia is that once for making a provision contrary to existing law an enactment is made and the Presidential assent is taken, then every time whenever the said Act is amended, Presidential assent must be taken, otherwise it will defeat the provisions of Article 254 (1) of the Constitution of India. In support of this contention, Dr. Padia has also submitted, that U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is an existing law, for the first time an amendment was made in the aforesaid Act by U. P. Act No. 35 of 1958, making a provision prescribing procedure for selection of the teachers, thereby U. P. Act No. 35 of 1958 became part of U. P, Intermediate Education Act and the provisions enumerated by U. P. Act No. 35 of 1958 also became existing law. Dr. Padia, in support of his contention, has relied upon (1) State of West Bengal v. Union of India AIR. 1963 SC 124 and (2) Anand Kumar Chakravarti v. State of West Bengal AIR 1977 Cal. 73 . 29. Dr. Padia, in support of his contention, has relied upon (1) State of West Bengal v. Union of India AIR. 1963 SC 124 and (2) Anand Kumar Chakravarti v. State of West Bengal AIR 1977 Cal. 73 . 29. I have carefully looked into these decisions these decisions are not on the point, as such, are not being discussed. 30. In Kalyani Stores v. State of Orissa, AIR 1966 SC 1686 at page 1691, the Honourable Supreme Court took the view that a notification issued under the existing statute after commencement of the Constitution is not existing law, if the notification seeks to change the law. On the same analogy, the amendments made in the existing statute, changing the law will not be covered within the definition of existing law within the meaning of Article 366 (10, of the Constitution of India The submission to the contrary made by Dr. Padia is not sustainable. The State Legislature has plenary power to legislate on any subject which is in its legislative competence. If an enactment has been made by the State Legislature on a subject within its legislative competence, then the provision of the State enactment can be challenged only on the ground that the said provision is either violative of Fundemental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India or violative of any constitutional provision. An analysis of the scheme of the Constitution shows that the State Legislature is competent to amend any existing law, if subject matter falls within its legislative competence exclusively. If the subject matter falls in the Concurrent List and any law is enacted by the State Government, which is repugnant to the existing law, then to the extent of repugnancy the law made by the State Legislature will be void except in cases where the Presidential assent is obtained and then such law will prevail under Article 254 (2) of the Constitution of India. 31. The education was initially in the List-2 of 7th Schedule of the Constitution, which is a State List. For the first time the Education was deleted from the State List by 42nd Constitutional Amendment and was brought in the Concurrent List i.e. List-3 of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India. 31. The education was initially in the List-2 of 7th Schedule of the Constitution, which is a State List. For the first time the Education was deleted from the State List by 42nd Constitutional Amendment and was brought in the Concurrent List i.e. List-3 of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India. The 42nd Amendment was brought into effect on 18-12-1976, so whatever amendments were made in U. P. Intermediate Education Act before 18-12 1976, the Article 254 (1) of the Constitution had no relevance to those amendments. After 18-12-1976, U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 was enacted. Then education was in List 3. U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 introduced some provisions which were inconsistent with the provisions of U. P. Act No. 35 of 1958 and U. P. Act No. 26 of 1976. The provisions of U. P. Act 35 of 1958 and U. P. Act No. 26 of 1976 cannot be termed as existing law, no Presidential assent was required even for enacting U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982. It seems that by way of abundant caution, the Presidential assent was taken. Once the Presidential assent is taken, Article 254 (2) of the Constitution comes into play and the law enacted by the State Legislature prevails after obtaining the Presidential assent. Thereafter for further amending the law, in the law made by the State Legislature, which has received the Presidential assent, no further Presidential assent is required, as by the amendment, no provision is made, which is repugnant to existing law. The submission of Dr. Padia is wholly misconceived and deserves to be rejected Article 200 proviso 2 and Article 201 of the Constitution, which have been referred to by Dr. Padia, are in different context and no assistance can be drawd from the provisions of the Constitution referred to by Dr. Padia in support of his submissions. 32. In the end a feable submission has also been made by Dr. Padia that the provisions of U. P. Act. No. 24 of 1982, as contemplated by sub-clause (9) of substituted section 18 are vague and are not enforceable. The submission is that substituted section 18 (9) (a) does not mention as to which District Inspector of Schools or as to which Basic Shiksha Adhikari, or which Inspectress of Girls Schools and which Principal of Government Girls Intermediate College will constitute the Selection- Committee. The submission is that substituted section 18 (9) (a) does not mention as to which District Inspector of Schools or as to which Basic Shiksha Adhikari, or which Inspectress of Girls Schools and which Principal of Government Girls Intermediate College will constitute the Selection- Committee. The argument is clearly misconceived, as tide very section starts with the words that for each district, there shall be a Selection Committee comprising of the authorities mentioned in the section referred to authorities of the same district for which the Selection Committee is to be constituted. There is no vaguness in the provision. The argument has absolutely no leg to stand and is accordingly rejected. All the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners have failed. As already stated, in all these petitions, the appointments have been made by the Committee of Management in violation of the provisions of Section 18. as, substituted in U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 by U.P. Act No. 24 of 1992. Ail such appointments are wholly illegal and these appointments do not confer any legal or enforceable flight to the petitioners. The writ petitions are accordingly rejected. 33. Since the petitions have been dismissed at the admission stage, the petitioners are not burdened with any costs. Petition dismissed.