JUDGMENT Honble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—The petitioner’s committee of management has opposed this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved with the appointment of authorised controller under the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 (in short the Act) on the ground that the authorised controller has been appointed for unspecified period which is not permissible under the Statutes. 2. The question involves, whether an authorised controller be appointed under the Act for unspecified period? 3. In brief, the facts are that on account of alleged non-compliance of payment of salary of two class-IV employees, the Regional Joint Director, Aligarh, passed the order dated 6/7.6.2008 under sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act (contained in Annexure 1-A to the writ petition). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CMWP No. 30489 of 2008 which was decided finally by the judgment and order dated 7.7.2008 permitting the petitioner to prefer statutory appeal before the Director of Secondary Education. In consequence thereof, the petitioner preferred appeal which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 2.9.2008. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had invited attention towards sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act which provides that the Committee of Management is for a period not exceeding one year in pursuance of the order passed by the Regional Deputy Director. However, the period of one year may be extended by subsequent order. For convenience Section 6 of the Act is reproduced as under : "6. Enforcement of provisions and directions.—(1) Where the Inspector on the basis of an inspection of an institution or its records or otherwise, is satisfied that its management has committed default in complying with any direction given 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, Education, may call upon the management to comply with the said direction or provisions or to show cause within a week why the management should not be suspended. (2) On receipt of a recommendation under sub-section (1) the Regional Deputy Director, Education, may call upon the management to comply with the said direction or provisions 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, Education, considers the cause shown to be insufficient, he may by order supersede the management for such period not exceeding one year as may be specified in the Order, and authorise any person (hereinafter referred to as Authorised Controller) to take over the management of the institution for the said period : Provided that the Regional Deputy Director, Education, may where he considers it necessary or expedient so to do— (i) extend the said period, from time to time, so however, that the period so extended does not exceed five years in the aggregate; or (ii) revoke the order at any time : Provided further that nothing in clause (ii) of the preceding proviso shall bar the passing of a fresh order under this section. (4) On an order being made under sub-section (3) the Authorised Controller shall, to the exclusion of the management and subject only to the Direction, the Director or the State Government, exercise all the powers and perform all the functions of the management, including management of the property belonging to or vested in the institution and in particular, operate singly the bank account referred to in Section 5 : Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed to confer on the Authorised Controller the power to transfer any such property (except by way of letting from month to month in the ordinary course of management) or to create any charge thereon (except as a condition of receipt of any grant-in-aid of the institution from the State Government). (5) Any order made or direction given under this Section shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment or instrument relating to the management and control of the institution (including any scheme of administration) or relating to the property belonging to or vested in the institution." 5. (5) Any order made or direction given under this Section shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment or instrument relating to the management and control of the institution (including any scheme of administration) or relating to the property belonging to or vested in the institution." 5. A plain reading of Section 6 of the Act indicates that where the District Inspector of Schools is satisfied that the management has committed default in compliance of directions issued by him, he may recommend the Deputy Director of Education for action and after receipt of recommendation the Regional Deputy Director of Education, may call for compliance of the said direction or provisions or to show cause within a week why the management not be superseded by authorised controller. In case management complies with the said direction or submits reply to show cause and the Regional Deputy Director of Education is not satisfied with the reply, he may appoint an authorised controller for the period not exceeding one year. The order so passed, may be extended from time to time but not exceeding to five years. 6. In the present case, while passing the impugned order dated 6/7.6.2008 contained in Annexure 1-A to the writ petition, the Authorised Controller has been appointed without specifying the period. More than a year has passed but no instruction has been received with regard to extension of time. However, while passing the impugned order, since the period has not been specified, the order seems to be violative of statutory provisions contained in the Act (supra). 7. Learned Standing Counsel vehemently argued that the period may be extended and it should be deemed to be an order passed for one year. The argument advanced seems to be misconceived. The language of the Section is quite clear and it is cardinal principle of interpretation that when the language is clear, then casus omissus cannot be supplied by the Courts. The statutory provisions provide for appointment of authorised controller not exceeding one year. Meaning thereby, an authorised controller may be appointed even for less than a year. Accordingly, while appointing authorised controller, it shall be always obligatory on the Regional Director concerned to specify the period by applying his mind keeping in view the facts and circumstances of a particular case. 8. Meaning thereby, an authorised controller may be appointed even for less than a year. Accordingly, while appointing authorised controller, it shall be always obligatory on the Regional Director concerned to specify the period by applying his mind keeping in view the facts and circumstances of a particular case. 8. It is also a settled principle of law that in case State wants to do a thing, then that should be done in the manner proved in the statutes and not otherwise vide, Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253; Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1527 ; Patna Improvement Trust v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi and others, AIR 1963 SC 1077 ; State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh and others, AIR 1964 SC 358 ; Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board, AIR 1967 SC 295 (Para 34); Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad and others, 1999 (8) SCC 266 ; Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and others, 2000 (7) SCC 296 ; Dhananjay Reddy v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 1512 ; Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and others, 2002 (1) SCC 633 ; Prabha Shankar Dubey v. State of M.P., AIR 2004 SC 486 and Ramphal Kundu v. Kamal Sharma, AIR 2004 SC 1657 . Taylor v. Taylor, (1876) 1 Ch.D. 426; Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2077 ; Ramchandra Keshav Adke v. Govind Joti Chavare and others, AIR 1975 SC 915 ; Chettiam Veettil Ammad and another v. Taluk Land Board and others, AIR 1979 SC 1573 ; State of Bihar and others v. J.A.C. Saldanna and others, AIR 1980 SC 326 , A.K. Roy and another v. State of Punjab and others; AIR 1986 SC 2160 ; State of Mizoram v. Biakchhawna, 1995 (1) SCC 156 ; J.N. Ganatra v. Morvi Municipality Morvi, AIR 1996 SC 2520 ; Babu Verghese and others v. Bar Council of Kerala and others, AIR 1999 SC 1281 ; and Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad, (1998) 8 SCC 266. Any decision taken by the authorities not in accordance with law, is liable to be set aside by the Courts in case aggrieved parties approaches the Courts. 9. In the present case, since the impugned order does not disclose as for what period the authorised controller has been appointed, impugned order seems to be not sustainable. Any decision taken by the authorities not in accordance with law, is liable to be set aside by the Courts in case aggrieved parties approaches the Courts. 9. In the present case, since the impugned order does not disclose as for what period the authorised controller has been appointed, impugned order seems to be not sustainable. The appellate authority has also not applied its mind while rejecting the appeal. In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 6/7.6.2008 contained in Annexure 1-A and the order dated 2.9.2008 contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition with consequential benefits. The committee of management shall be restored forthwith. In case the term of the committee of management has expired, then fresh election shall be conducted in accordance with law expeditiously. No orders as to costs. ———