O. P. JAIN, J. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders, Annexures 3 and 4, dated 27th September, 1993 and 28th October, 1993 respectively, passed by respondent No. 1. 2. The petitioner is a registered Society which is running several institutions, mentioned in Annexure 2 to the writ petition. All the institu tions run by the petitioner are imparting education from primary classes to Junior High School classes. The institutions recognised but not aided. It is stated by the petitioner that ever since the institutions were founded they have been conducting their own examination so far as classes upto VII are concerned. The respondent conducts only the examination for Class VIII which is also known as Junior High School. The respondent has, however, issued Circulars Annexures "3" and "4" by which it has been provided that the question-papers for class V will be prepared by the respondent and that a Block level one institution will be declared as the leading institution and the examination of class V will be conducted at that institution which is declared as such, for this purpose a fee of Rs. 2 per student will be charged. 3. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the respondent has no power to conduct any examination other than the examination of class VIII (Junior High School) without express permission of the State Government. 4. Before proceeding to deal with this contention a brief summary of Circular, Annexure 4 may be given. Annexure 4 shows that a list of leading institution, in each block, will be prepared by 31st March and that the examination papers for class Vth will be got prepared and printed as district level. The respondent will arrange for supply of question papers to the leading institutions. These question-papers will be moderated and printing will be done after maintaining secrecy. This circular also emphasises that there is necessity of constant appraisal for the whole year and, therefore, on the last working day of each month, a monthly examination shall take place. This circular also shows that some marks obtained in the monthly examination will be added in the marks obtained by the students in the annual examination. 5. I have heard Sri Dhrue Narain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri I. S. Shukla for U. P. Basic Shiksha Parishad and have gone through the record. 6. This circular also shows that some marks obtained in the monthly examination will be added in the marks obtained by the students in the annual examination. 5. I have heard Sri Dhrue Narain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri I. S. Shukla for U. P. Basic Shiksha Parishad and have gone through the record. 6. Powers of the respondents are derived from Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act of 1972 (hereinafter called the Act) Section 4 (1) of the Act reads as under : "section 4 (1 ).-Subject to the provisions of this Act it shall be the function of the Board to organise, co- ordianate and control the imparting of basic education and teachers training therefor, In the State, to raise the standards |and to relate it with the system of education as a whole in the State". The scheme framed by the respondent in Annexure "4" is to give effect to this co-ordinating role assigned to the respondent. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Section 4 (2) (b) of the Act which reads as under : "section 4 (2) (b ).-To conduct the junior high school and basic training certificate examinations and such other examinations as the State Government may time to time by general or special order issue to it and to grant diplomas or certificates to candi dates successful at such examinations. " 8. On the basis of this provision it is argued that the Act authorises the respondent only to conduct the Junior High School examination and it can conduct other Examinations as the State Government, may from time to time assign to it. The contention is that the State Government has not assigned the respondent the duty to conduct examination of class Vth, 6th or 7th and, therefore, respondent No. 1 cannot hold examination for class Vth. 9. In my opinion, this contention has no force because the provisions of sub-clause (2) of Section 4 starts with the words "without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (2)". This clearly shows that the enumeration of the powers of the Board in sub-clause (b) of sub-section (2) does not in any way places any limitation on the powers conferred on the Board by Section 4 (1) of the Act. 10. This clearly shows that the enumeration of the powers of the Board in sub-clause (b) of sub-section (2) does not in any way places any limitation on the powers conferred on the Board by Section 4 (1) of the Act. 10. The contention that the Board cannot hold any examination other than the Junior High School examination, without the general or special order of the Government is not correct, Government permission is required for conducting only such examination for which diplomas and certificates are granted by the Board. As no certificate or diploma is granted by the Board for passing class Vth examination, no general or special order of the Government is necessary. 11. As stated earlier, this scheme has been framed to introduce uniformity in the basic education imparted by various institutions, it has been stated in para 5 of the counter-affidavit, filed by the Joint Secretary of respondent No. 1 that Parishad had, after a great deliberations resolved to bring in a change in the examination system so as to keep the students engaged in studies continuously and accordingly direction has been issued for adopting the system detailed in Annexure "4" to the writ petition. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in order to appear in the examination of class Vth the students will have to go to a different village and may have to incur unnecessary expenditure. In my opinion, this contention is not acceptable because the institution to which the student will be required to go will be at the block level. A Develop ment Block is a unit of a few villages and, therefore, the students will not have to go more than a few kilometres from their village. It, is, there-not correct to say that some unnecessary financial burden will be faced by the students. The scheme has been framed by the respondent to bring uniforunity in the teaching and to raise the educational standard. The com parative gain to the educational system will be much more than the mere inconvenience faced by some students. 13. In view of above discussion, this writ petition has no force and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. .