JUDGMENT : A.N. VARMA, J. 1. Through the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have assailed the order dated 10.9.2004 passed by the Director of Education (Madhyamik) U.P. Lucknow, copy of which has been annexed along with the writ petition as Annexure-6. It has further been prayed that a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding and directing the opposite parties to declare the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 (U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982) and Rules framed thereunder known as U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998, as invalid and the opposite parties be directed not to disturb the Teachers and Lecturers appointed by the Committee of Management and treat them as regularised. It has further been prayed that opposite party No. 6 be directed and commanded not to function and make selections and recommendations of the panel of Teachers in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brahmo Samaj Educational Society case. 2. The Petitioners who are said to be duly elected Committee of Management, having their own approved Scheme of Administration, are running the colleges, namely, Adarsh Vidyalaya Inter College, Balrampur and Lok Manya Tilak Inter College, Pachpedwa, district Balrampur respectively, through Society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act. The provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (to be hereinafter referred to as 1921 Act) as well as U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 are applicable to the said colleges. According to the Petitioners, in view of the fact that the procedure for selection, appointment, confirmation, regularisation, punishment etc. of teachers and employees of the Colleges are duly provided under the 1921 Act. U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1982) is unwarranted and uncalled for being unnecessary subordinate legislation which, in fact, is creating confusions and conflict with the autonomy of the institutions run by the duly registered and recognized Committees of Management. According to them the selection and appointment of teachers through Commission is without any reasonable basis. According to them the selection and appointment of teachers through Commission is without any reasonable basis. The establishment of Board curtails the right and power of the Committee of Management to make selections and appointments in the Colleges and, thus, infringes with the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Annexure-6 according to the Petitioner is totally unwarranted inasmuch as it tends to harass the Management unnecessarily in due performance of its duties in the matter of appointment and other administrative functions. The impugned order according to them prima facie appears to be tainted inasmuch as the State Government is in hurry to make selections and discontinue the teachers appointed by the Committee of Management. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners Dr. L. P. Misra as well as the counsel appearing on behalf of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board and Shri M. B. Singh the learned standing counsel. With the consent of the parties matter is being finally disposed of at the admission stage. 4. Dr. Misra vehemently argued that the procedure prescribed for the selection, appointment, confirmation, regularization and punishment of the teachers and other staff of the Institutions are duly provided under 1921 Act. This being so, Act No. 5 of 1982 is totally unwarranted and uncalled for and is unnecessary subordinate legislation creating anomalous situations and interfering with the autonomy of the institutions run by the duly registered and recognized committee of management. According to him selection and appointment of teachers from amongst the qualified candidates is the right of the management for maintenance of academic standard and administrative autonomy of the aided Institutions. As per his arguments the State can very well provide the basic qualifications for appointment of teachers, but so far as the matter of selection and appointment is concerned, the same vests with the management and it cannot be infringed by bringing into a legislation. In support of his arguments he relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brahmo Samaj Education Society v. State of West Bengal, ESC (SC) 333. According to him in view of the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 deserves to be struck down. 5. According to him in view of the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 deserves to be struck down. 5. In opposition the learned Counsel for the Commission argued that the principle enunciated by the Apex Court in Brahmo Samaj Education Society (supra) has no application insofar as the case at hand is concerned inasmuch as the same was with regard to a minority institution. It was also submitted that since no action has been taken against the Petitioners under the provisions of Act 5 of 1982, therefore, the writ petition is premature and deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned standing counsel on the other hand argued that the impugned order as contained in Annexure-6 are only the guidelines and instructions to the Divisional Joint Education Director, U.P. and the District Inspector of Schools issued pursuant to the direction given by this Court in various writ petitions filed by the ad hoc teachers who were allowed to continue until such time persons duly selected from the Commission come and join the institution. Since persons duly selected are not being allowed to join by the Committee of Management and ad hoc teachers appointed by them were being allowed to continue, therefore, it has been provided that the selected candidates be allowed to join in the Institution for which they have been recommended. The District Inspector of Schools have been directed to ensure the said compliance. The impugned order further postulates that strict action be taken against those Committee of Management who have illegally and irregularly appointed teachers and are not allowing the selected candidates to join. It further provides that those Committees of Management which are not making payment of salary in accordance with the provisions of Payment of Salaries Act, 1971 be superseded. According to the learned Standing Counsel since no action has been taken against the Petitioners pursuant to Annexure-6, therefore, they have no cause of action for maintaining the present petition. On the question of applicability of Brahmo Samaj case (supra), the learned standing counsel argued that the principle enunciated therein are not attracted in so far as the case at hand is concerned. 7. The appointment of teachers in Secondary Institutions recognized by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education was governed by the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Regulations made thereunder. 7. The appointment of teachers in Secondary Institutions recognized by the Board of High School 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 regulations was at times not free and fair. Field of selection was also restricted which adversely affected the availability of suitable teachers and standard of education. It was, thus, considered necessary to constitute the Secondary Education Services Commission at the State level to select Principals, Lecturers, Headmasters and L. T. Grade teachers. u/s 16G (3) (a) of 1921 Act managements were authorized to impose punishment with the approval of the District Inspector of Schools in the matters pertaining to disciplinary action. This was found to be inadequate in cases where the Management proposed to impose punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank and so it was considered necessary that power should be exercised subject to approval of the Commission or Selection Boards. With a view to achieve the above objects. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 was enacted. Pursuant to the same Secondary Education Services Selection Board for selection of teachers in Institutions recognized under the Intermediate Act, 1921 was established. 8. Sections 3 and 4 of the 1982 Act prescribe for the establishment and composition of the Board while Section 9 lays down the powers and duties of the Board, one such power being to prepare guidelines relating to the method of direct recruitment of teachers and to make recommendations regarding the appointment of the selected candidates Section 12 lays down the procedure for selection of candidates by promotion and Section 16 provides for appointment to be made by the Management on the recommendations of the Board. Section 18 (1) vests the Management with the power for appointment of Principals and Headmasters on ad hoc basis while Section 18 (4) prescribes that every appointment of an ad hoc Principal and Headmaster shall cease to have effect from the date when the candidate recommended by the Board joins the post. Section 22 of the Act prescribes punishment for appointment of teachers in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Section 22 of the Act prescribes punishment for appointment of teachers in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Section 33 prescribes the procedure for regularisation of certain appointments and Section 34 empowers the Board to make regulations for holding selections, interviews and laying down the procedure to be followed by the Board for discharge of its duties and performance of its functions. 9. Thus, as would appear that a complete procedure has been prescribed for selection and recommendation of the selected candidates to the Management for appointment of candidates, the power of appointment being with the Management. 10. In Brahmo Samaj Education Society's case (supra) West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Service) Act, 1975 was under challenge. The said Act was neither declared invalid nor was held as ultra vires by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petition was decided in terms of the interim orders made by the Apex Court. In paras 10 and 11 of the said report, it was observed as follows: 10. When a larger Bench consisting of 11 Judges of this Court in T. M. A. Pai has declared what the law on the matter is, we do not want to dilute the effect of the same by analysing various statements made therein or indulge in any dissection of the principles underlying it. We would rather state that the State Government shall take note of the declarations of law made by this Court in this regard and make suitable amendments to their laws, rules and regulations to bring them in conformity with the principles set out therein. 11. In this view of the matter, it is unnecessary to examine whether the present rules are valid or not. Until such time as such rules are framed in terms of the order made by us now, the interim orders made by this Court in these proceedings will be operative. 11. In case T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 2003 SC 355 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 72 held as follows: Once aid is granted to a private professional educational institution, the Government or the State agency, as a condition of the grant of aid, can put fetters on the freedom in the matter of administration and management of the institution. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 2003 SC 355 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 72 held as follows: Once aid is granted to a private professional educational institution, the Government or the State agency, as a condition of the grant of aid, can put fetters on the freedom in the matter of administration and management of the institution. The State, which gives aid to an educational institution, can impose such conditions as are necessary for the proper maintenance of the high standards of education as the financial burden is shared by the State. The State would also be under an obligation to protect the interest of the teaching and non-teaching staff. In many States, there are various statutory provisions to regulate the functioning of such educational institutions where the States give, as a grant or aid, a substantial proportion of the revenue expenditure including salary, pay and allowances of teaching and non-teaching staff. It would be its responsibility to ensure that the teachers working in those institutions are governed by proper service conditions. The State, in the case of such aided institutions, has ample power to regulate the method of selection and appointment of teachers after prescribing requisite qualifications for the same. 12. In view of the aforesaid proposition laid down by the Apex Court the State can regulate the method of selection and appointment of teachers after prescribing requisite qualifications for the same, thus, it cannot be gainsaid that Act of 1982 encroaches upon the right of the Petitioners to manage the affairs of the institution. Act of 1982 is an exhaustive piece of legislation prescribing the method of selection, recruitment and appointment of teachers for the aided institutions. It does not run contrary to any of the provisions of 1921 Act or the Constitution of India, nor is it in derogation of any of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid two decisions. Act of 1982 had been enacted so as to select best amongst the academicians in order to maintain high standards in the matter of training and imparting education to the students who in their future years would play an important role in moulding the destiny of the nation. Their chances of selection/appointment cannot be marred by allowing the ad hoc appointees to continue. 13. Their chances of selection/appointment cannot be marred by allowing the ad hoc appointees to continue. 13. In view of the fact that no action has till date been initiated against the Petitioners by the opposite parties pursuant to Annexure-6, they cannot be said to be aggrieved in any manner by the impugned order. 14. Since the persons duly selected and recommended by the Commission are waiting at the threshold for their career to start, they cannot be prevented by continuance of ad hoc employees. 15. In Karnataka State Private College Stopgap Lecturers Association v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (1992) 2 UPLBEC 1110 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deprecating ad hoc and stopgap appointments, in para 2 observed as follows: 2. Ad hoc appointments, a convenient way of entry usually from backdoor, at times even in disregard of rules and regulations are comparatively recent innovation to the service jurisprudence. They are individual problems to begin with, become a family problem with passage of time and end with human problem in Court of Law. It is unjust and unfair to those who are lesser fortunate in society with little or no approach even though better qualified, more meritorious and well deserving. The infection is widespread in Government or semi-Government departments or State financial institutions. It arises either because the appointing authority resorts to it deliberately as a favour or to accommodate someone or for any extraneous reason ignoring the regular procedure provided for recruitment as a pretext under emergency measure or to avoid loss of work etc. Or the rules of circulars issued by the department itself empower the authority to do so as a stopgap arrangement. The former is an abuse of power. It is unpardonable. Even if it is found to have been resorted to as a genuine emergency measure the courts should be reluctant to grant indulgence. Later gives rise to equities which have bothered courts every now and then. Malady appears to be widespread in educational institutions as provisions for temporary or ad hoc appointments have been exploited by the managements of private aided colleges to their advantage by filling it, on one hand with persons of own choice, at times without following the procedure, and keeping the teachers exposed to threat of termination, on the other, with all evil consequences flowing out of it. Any institution, run by State fund but managed privately is bound to suffer from such inherent drawbacks. 16. In view of what has been said hereinabove the writ petition lacks merit and as such is accordingly dismissed. 17. There will, however, be no order as to costs.