JUDGMENT : S.S. Chauhan, J. – The present petition has been filed challenging the approval of opposite party no.8 on the post of of Head Master of Annapurna Adarsh Vidyalaya Dhaurua District Ambedkar Nagar. A further prayer has been made for quashing of the appointment of opposite party no.8 and if any selection has been made, the same may not be given effect to. 2. Since counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, therefore, with the consent of parties counsel, I dispose of the writ petition finally. 3. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that Annapurna Adarsh Vidyalaya Dhaurua District Ambedkar Nagar (for short 'School') is a recognized unaided School under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act (for short 'the Act'). Initially the School was started as a Junior High School and after getting the permanent recognition, the Junior High School was taken on grant-in-aid list in the year 1984. Subsequently in the year 1998, the Junior High School was upgraded as unaided High School and in the year 2000 the School was upgraded as unaided Intermediate College. It is alleged that at present the institution is having status of unaided intermediate College. The salary is being paid up to the level of Junior High School through the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The power of BSA is limited only up to the disbursement of salary and rest of the powers are vested with the District Inspector of Schools. 4. The petitioner being appointed as Assistant Teacher of the School is working as ad hoc Principal and his signatures were duly attested by the BSA. 5. An advertisement has been made by opposite parties no.6 and 7 for making selection on the post of Principal in the Junior High School. The petitioner was appointed on 1.7.1973 as Assistant Teacher on regular basis. The signatures of the petitioner as officiating Principal have been attested by the BSA as well as DIOS on 26.6.2008 and the petitioner is working as Principal of Intermediate College and is also holding charge of the Principal of the School. The advertisement issued by the opposite parties for selection on the post of Principal has been challenged by way of the present petition. 6. The advertisement issued by the opposite parties for selection on the post of Principal has been challenged by way of the present petition. 6. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is senior most Assistant Teacher having been appointed on 1.7.1973, he is entitled to continue as Principal of the College in question. It is also submitted that once the institution has been upgraded, the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act would be applicable in accordance with the law propounded by this Court in the case of Dr.(Smt.) Sushila Gupta Vs. The Joint Director of Education, Kanpur and others, which has been rendered relying upon the judgment of Full Bench wherein Clause 5 of the Government Order dated 24.11.2001 was found to be ultra vires and against the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act and as such no selection could be made on the post of Principal in the College in question as the identity of the Junior High School has come to an end and at the moment the School is an upgraded unaided Intermediate College whereas the opposite party no.8 is being selected for the post of Principal of the Junior High School. The Junior High School has lost its identity and, therefore, no selection can be made on the said post. As a consequence the selection of Principal at this juncture would defeat the rightful claim of the petitioner who happens to be the senior most teacher by virtue of the fact that the Principal of the College would be treated as L.T. Grade teacher after the up-gradation. He has also submitted that the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act would be applicable after upgradation and the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act and Rules framed there under shall not be applicable in the field as ruled by this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.8 Sri Raghvendra Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anurag Kumar Singh has submitted that on the date of passing of the interim order he was not present and, therefore, his argument could not be appreciated although on earlier occasions the case was argued at length but no interim order was granted. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.8 Sri Raghvendra Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anurag Kumar Singh has submitted that on the date of passing of the interim order he was not present and, therefore, his argument could not be appreciated although on earlier occasions the case was argued at length but no interim order was granted. He further submitted that the institution is a recognized institution up to the Junior High School level and, therefore, the Principal of the Junior High School is supposed to sign the salary bill and to make payment of salary to the teachers and other staff of the aided Junior High School. 8. After Full Bench decision by this Court Section 13-A was brought into effect by way of amendment in Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act,1978 (U.P. Act No.6 of 1979) with a view to fill the Vacuum created by the impugned decision of the Full Bench and to allow uninterrupted payment of salary to the teachers of the Junior High School. He also placed reliance upon a judgment reported in Commissioner Lucknow Division and others Vs. Kumari Prem Lata Misra. It is also submitted by him that the salary can not be paid by the DIOS as the institution is an unaided institution. The provisions of Intermediate Education Act can not be applied so far the payment of salary is concerned. The selection on the post of Principal of Junior High School can be made where the institution is upgraded in view of the provisions contained under Chapter II-Regulation 2(g) and, therefore, the selection made by the opposite parties is well within their competence and the said selection is to be made for limited purposes i.e. for payment of salary to the teachers of the aided Junior High School. He also submits that the payment can only be made under the U.P. Act No.6 of 1979 and the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act 1971 does not authorize the DIOS to exercise any jurisdiction to pass the salary bill or to make payment of salary. He also submits that the payment can only be made under the U.P. Act No.6 of 1979 and the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act 1971 does not authorize the DIOS to exercise any jurisdiction to pass the salary bill or to make payment of salary. The provisions of Intermediate Education Act after up gradation of the Institution would be applicable to the extent of up gradation but there is no provision under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act or Regulations framed thereunder except Chapter II Regulation 2(g) which takes care of the aforesaid contingency where the institution is up graded to High School, the selection for the post of Principal is to be made by the committee of management in accordance with the procedure provided in Regulation 2 sub regulation (1) and (2)(a) to (2)(f). The appointment of Lecturer in the upgraded unaided High School has to be made in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 7AA where the Act authorizes the management to appoint part time Lecturers from its own resources. The part time Lecturer can not be permitted to assume the post of Principal as they are not regularly selected LT grade teacher or teachers in the Lecturer grade. The up graded Colleges can only have a regular Principal and regular Principal is available from amongst the teachers of the Junior High School. 9. So far as the payment of salary and other matters arising out in the internal management are concerned, the part time Lecturers can not take place of regular Lecturers and, therefore, they cannot be allowed to discharge the duties as Principal. The payment of salary Act 1971 does not come into picture as no payment is to be made to the Lecturer/Teachers of upgraded School under the Act. 10. Hon'ble the Single Judge while deciding the case of (Smt.) Sushila Gupta (Supra) could not take into consideration the provisions contained in Chapter II Regular 2(g) as such could not appreciate the controversy in correct perspective. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Hon'ble the Single Judge while deciding the case of (Smt.) Sushila Gupta (Supra) could not take into consideration the provisions contained in Chapter II Regular 2(g) as such could not appreciate the controversy in correct perspective. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Junior High school on 1.7.1973 and thereafter the School in question was taken on grant-in-aid list in the year 1984 and since the year 1984 the teachers appointed in the Junior High School continued to work on the post of teachers and Principal respectively and were governed by U.P. Basic Education Act and Rules framed thereunder. 12. The institution in question was upgraded up to the level of High School in an unaided category in the year 1998 and thereafter in the year 2000 the School was recognized as unaided Intermediate College under Section 7-A of the Act. On 29.5.2008 one Dhup Narain Singh, Headmaster of the institution died and thereafter the post of Head master fell vacant and permission was sought from the BSA for making regular selection and the permission was granted to the management and in pursuance thereof an advertisement was made for making selection on the said post by Management on 22.10.2009. Prior to death of Dhoop Narain Singh, he continued to discharge duties as Principal of the upgraded intermediate College. In pursuance to the advertisement the BSA appointed an Observer vide order dated 3.12.2009 and interview was held on 9.12.2009 for the post of Head Master in the institution and the opposite party no.8 was selected for the post of Head Master. The BSA granted approval for the selection of opposite party no.8 vide letter dated 11.12.2009 and the opposite party no.8 joined on the said post on 12.12.2009 and thereafter it is alleged that the opposite party no.8 started functioning as Head Master of the Junior High School. The Committee of Management of the College passed a resolution to the effect that the opposite party no.8 will act as Principal of unaided upgraded intermediate section of the institution run by the Society. The DIOS also attested signatures of opposite party no.8 on 29.12.2009. 13. The Committee of Management of the College passed a resolution to the effect that the opposite party no.8 will act as Principal of unaided upgraded intermediate section of the institution run by the Society. The DIOS also attested signatures of opposite party no.8 on 29.12.2009. 13. The present writ petition was filed on 24.12.2009 questioning the selection of opposite party no.8 inter alia on the ground that once the institution is upgraded, even in the unaided category, the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act will apply and once the provisions of the Act are applicable, the senior most Assistant Teacher has to be permitted to officiate as Principal of the upgraded College which the petitioner happens and selection on the post of the Principal can only be made under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,1921 and Regulations framed there under coupled with the provisions of the U.P. Act No.5 of 1982, therefore, the selection and the appointment to the post of Head of the Institution could have only been made under the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Services Selection Board Act of 1982 ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Board Act') and the Rules framed thereunder ; that the appointment could not have been proceeded with under the 1978 Rules which are applicable with respect to the Junior High School. 14. Chapter II of Regulations framed under the Act deals with the appointment of Head of the Institution and Teachers. 15. Regulation II of Chapter II provides that where an institution not being an institution referred to in Section 16 of the Act, if any vacancy arises due to grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding six months or by death, retirement or suspension of an incumbent occurring during an educational session in the post of the Head of institution shall be filled by promotion of the senior most qualified teacher, if any, in the highest grade in the institution. The word 'qualified teacher' in the aforesaid Regulation goes to indicate that when a temporary vacancy is caused, the senior most teacher is to be appointed by way of promotion in an officiating capacity. The Act No.5 of 1982 contemplates for appointment of the Principal with certain qualifications prescribed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act as contained in Appendix 'A' . 16. The Act No.5 of 1982 contemplates for appointment of the Principal with certain qualifications prescribed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act as contained in Appendix 'A' . 16. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether any appointment can be made from amongst the Lecturer/LT grade Teachers working in an unaided institution on part time basis. 17. Section 7-A of the Act reads as under :- " 7-A.Recognition of an institution in any new subject or for a higher class---Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (4) of Section 7-- (a) the Board may, with the prior approval of the State Government, recognize an institution in any new subject or group of subject or for a higher class.". 18. Section 7-AA(1)(i) provides that appointment in a recognized unaided upgraded institution can be made on part time basis. The part time Lecturer can not be said to be possessing the qualification and falling in the category of regular teacher as prescribed under the Proviso to Chapter II Regulation 2. The part time Lecturer will continue in the same capacity and will have to be paid the salary from the resources of the management so there is no question that the senior most Lecturer of the institution of Intermediate College can sign any salary bill in respect of the Lecturer/L.T. Grade teacher working in the upgraded institution. The Junior High School is only receiving grant-in-aid and if Junior High School is receiving grant-in-aid, power for payment is to be exercised by the Principal of the Junior High School who is supposed to sign the salary bill and exercise power in this regard. 19. After the judgment of Full Bench in the case of State of Utter Pradesh Vs. District Judge, Varanasi, Section 13-A was added as a transitory provision to continue the grant-in-aid to the Junior High School. Now if the grant-in-aid to the Junior High School continues by virtue of Section 13-A of the U.P. Act No.6 of 1979 then no other Principal except the Principal of the Junior High School can exercise the power as contemplated under the U.P. Act No.6 of 1979 in regard to payment of salary. Now if the grant-in-aid to the Junior High School continues by virtue of Section 13-A of the U.P. Act No.6 of 1979 then no other Principal except the Principal of the Junior High School can exercise the power as contemplated under the U.P. Act No.6 of 1979 in regard to payment of salary. In view of the Full Bench decision after up gradation of the college the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act would be applicable but that was in respect of an up graded institution where their Lordships of the Full Bench observed that grant can not be claimed as a matter of right after the institution was upgraded to High School in order to over come the aforesaid observation and finding of the Full Bench the State Government added Section 13 in the Act but it does not mean that the grant in aid which continues in respect of the Junior High School can be disbursed in any other manner except as provided under Act No.6 of 1979. The institution is an upgraded and unaided institution, therefore, the provisions of U.P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salary to the teachers and other Employees) Act would not be applicable. The DIOS can exercise control and supervision over such institution to limited extent. Under Section 2-A, the Inspector has been defined to mean DIOS so the Act No.2 of 1971 will also not be applicable till the institution is aided. 20. So far the payment of salary to the teachers of upgraded institution is concerned they are only part time Lecturer/LT grade teachers and their salary is to be paid from the resources of the Management. The part time Lecturer can also not be appointed as Principal of the College and neither they can be allowed to continue as Principal of the College on account of the fact that they do not hold any regular post. So the the question which has been dealt with in the case of Dr.(Smt.) Sushila Gupta (supra) appears to be on consideration of the provisions of Act No.5 of 1982 wherein the power to appoint the Principal and Lecturers/Teachers is vested with the Board. A presumption was drawn by Hon'ble Single Judge that the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921 and the Regulation framed there under will be applicable to the upgraded institution. A presumption was drawn by Hon'ble Single Judge that the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921 and the Regulation framed there under will be applicable to the upgraded institution. Although Hon'ble Single Judge held that part time Lecturer are appointed under Section 7-AA(1)(i) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and financial liability was to be borne by the Management and his lordship also took into consideration Sections 2(b) and 2(d) of the Act and dictum of the Full Bench and thereafter came to the conclusion that the institution binds itself to be governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. His Lordship also found that the recognition and financial aid are two different things; the institution which has been recognized as High School or Intermediate College may not be receiving grant-in-aid and in such a situation it is only the payment of salaries Act i.e. U.P. Act No.6 of 1979 would be applicable, but after having been recognized by the State Government under Section 7-A(a) the institution is governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. It was also found that since the appointments to the post of Teachers have to be made by way of selection and recommendations under the U.P. Act No.5 of 1982, therefore, the said Act would also apply to the institution. 21. The aforesaid observation of Hon'ble Single Judge in the case of Dr.(Smt.) Sushila Gupta (supra) if accepted would lead to the conclusion that the appointments have to be made under Act No. 5 of 1982 whereas Act No.5 of 1982 would not be applicable in respect of the institution where appointment has to be made on part time basis and their salary is to be paid from the resources of the management only. 22. While considering the question of up gradation, if it is held that the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act are applicable whether it would be possible that the salary of Lecturer/ L.T. Grade Teachers appointed on part time basis can be paid by a Principal appointed on officiating basis from amongst the teachers of upgraded unaided institution. 23. The question of continuing the officiating Principal would also not be advisable as the officiating appointment can only be made under the provisions of Act No.18 of 1982 on the post of Principal. 23. The question of continuing the officiating Principal would also not be advisable as the officiating appointment can only be made under the provisions of Act No.18 of 1982 on the post of Principal. The Principal can only be appointed who is regular teacher. The institution after being recognised under Section 7-A of the Act, the Management of the upgraded institution would appoint the Principal on regular basis and once it is precluded from appointing the teacher on the regular basis it cannot appoint Principal on officiating basis. The preposition put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that senior most person should be allowed to continue as officiating Principal does not appeal to reason. The upgraded institution may be having recognition under Section 7-A of the Act but the recognition is qualified by certain restrictions in regard to the applicability of the Act. The qualification is prescribed under Section 7-AA of the Act wherein the authority has been given to the Management to make appointment on part time basis. So the restrictions provided under Section 7-A of the Act leads to only one conclusion that the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act after its recognition would be applicable only to the extent provided under the Act. 24. If for the argument sake it is accepted that the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act are applicable after the recognition of Setion7-A of the Act then as discussed herein above whether the salary can be paid under the Act No. 24 of 1971. Whether the DIOS can make payment of salary as provided under the Act; whether Lecturers/teachers can be appointed on regular basis by invoking the provisions of Act No. 5 of 1992; whether the provisions of Section 18 of Act No.5 of 1982 would be applicable. Apart from it what will be the extent of disciplinary control over part time Lecturers and to what extent the Act would be applicable to part time Lecturers. 25. All these questions if taken into consideration then the reply would be in the negative form. The Act No. 6 of 1979 is the proper Act under which the salary is to be paid to the Assistant Teachers of the Junior High School . 25. All these questions if taken into consideration then the reply would be in the negative form. The Act No. 6 of 1979 is the proper Act under which the salary is to be paid to the Assistant Teachers of the Junior High School . The said teachers do not assume the character of teachers of the upgraded institution till any provision in this regard authorises except as and when the upgraded institution starts receiving grant in aid. 26. Under U.P. Act 6 of 1979 the 'Education Officer' means the District Basic Education Officer appointed under the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act 1972. 'Inspector ' has been defined to mean the District Inspector of Schools. 'The Institution' means a recognized Junior High School for the time being receiving maintenance grant from the State Government. The "Maintenance grant" means such grant-in-aid of an institution as the State Government by general or special order in that behalf, directs to be treated as maintenance grant appropriate to the level of the institution. The "Teacher" of the Junior High School has been defined to mean a Headmaster or other teacher in respect of whose employment maintenance grant is paid by the State Government to the institution and the "Salary" of a teacher or employee means the aggregate of the emoluments, including dearness or any other allowance, for the time being payable to him at the rate approved for the purposes of payment of maintenance grant. Section 3 authorizes payment of salary within time and without unauthorized deductions. Section 4 confers the power upon the Basic Education Officer to inspect the institution. Section 6 authorizes the Basic Education Officer to make an inspection of the institution or its record or otherwise and if he is satisfied that the management has committed default in complying with any directions given under Section 4 or with the provisions of Section 3 or Section 5, he may through the Inspector,recommend to the Regional Deputy Director, Education, that action be taken against the institution under sub section (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 provide to show cause within a week why the management should not be superseded. 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 provide to show cause within a week why the management should not be superseded. Sub section (3) provides that 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. 27. Thus from the above provisions of the Act, it is clear that the limited role has been assigned to the DIOS where report has to be forwarded to the Regional Deputy Director, Education, to supersede the management. The payment of salary has to be made as provided under Section 5 of the Act where a joint account has to be opened by a representative of the management and Education Officer. Thus the scheme of the Act No.6 of 1979 authorises the Management and the BSA to make payment of salary. The DIOS does not emerge in the picture while salary is to be paid under Act No. 6 of 1979. 28. The limited application of the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act does not lead to the conclusion that upon upgradation the provisions of the Act would be applicable and the senior most teacher would be allowed to continue as the Principal. 29. The argument of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that regular Principal of the Junior High School was functioning after the institution was upgraded in the year 1998 and since then the petitioner was having no objection to the working of the regularly selected Principal. Now by virtue of the fact that said Principal expired on 29.5.2008 the process for selection of regular Principal was initiated. 30. Now by virtue of the fact that said Principal expired on 29.5.2008 the process for selection of regular Principal was initiated. 30. The question which is to be considered is whether selection on the post of Principal of the Junior High School can be made after the institution is upgraded and for this purpose one has to advert to the provisions of Chapter II Regulation 2(2) (g) which reads as under :- "A Headmaster of a High School who is not found fit for promotion as Principal of the upgraded Intermediate College or a Headmaster of a Junior High School who on its being raised as a High School , is not selected by the Selection Committee for the post of the Headmaster of upgraded High School, shall be retained as an assistant teacher on the highest post for which he is qualified, provided that this pay-scale shall not be reduced. Explanation--Nothing in this sub-clause shall apply to a person who was not permanent or was not duly appointed in accordance with law on the date on which the institution was raised to the level of a High School or an Intermediate College, as the case may be. " 31. The above provision goes to indicate that a Headmaster of High School who is not found fit for promotion as Principal of the upgraded Intermediate College or a Headmaster of a Junior High School who on its being raised as a High School, is not selected by the Selection Committee for the post of the Headmaster of upgraded High School then the committee of management in that eventuality, the said Assistant Teacher will retain the highest post for which he is qualified and his pay scale is not liable to be reduced. The word employed under Chapter II Regulation 2(g) is to the effect that a Headmaster of Junior High School is not selected as a Principal of upgrade High School by the selection committee goes to indicate that the selection has to be made by the selection committee on the post of Headmaster of upgraded High School. 32. The word employed under Chapter II Regulation 2(g) is to the effect that a Headmaster of Junior High School is not selected as a Principal of upgrade High School by the selection committee goes to indicate that the selection has to be made by the selection committee on the post of Headmaster of upgraded High School. 32. The contingency which has been provided in the aforesaid regulation is that a Headmaster who is not found fit for promotion as Principal of the upgraded Intermediate College or a Headmaster of High School, is not selected by the Selection Committee for the post of the Headmaster of upgraded High School, shall be retained as an assistant teacher on the highest post of which he is qualified, provided that his pay scale shall not be reduced. The explanation appended goes to indicate that the aforesaid condition shall not apply in relation to a person who is not permanent or is not duly appointed in accordance with law on the date on which the institution was raised to the level of a High School or an Intermediate College, as the case may be. 33. From the present case it can not be inferred that a Headmaster of a Junior High School on its being raised to High School has not been selected by the Selection Committee but in fact the Committee of Management has selected opposite party no.8 on the post of Headmaster of upgraded High School and Intermediate College. 34. In the present case after the School was upgraded as High School the regularly appointed Headmaster continued to discharge the function of Principal. In this case the promotion is not being made from the post of Headmaster to a post of Principal of an upgraded Intermediate College but in fact the High School as well as Intermediate College or unaided upgraded sections and as such the selection has to be made by the selection committee on the post of Headmaster of the upgraded High School. The advertisement has been made, it has been issued, process has been initiated so it can not be said that the action of the opposite parties in proceeding with the selection is all together without authority of law but in fact a selection has to be made by the selection committee. The petitioner was also entitled to participate in the selection. The petitioner was also entitled to participate in the selection. There can also be a contingency that after up -gradation the Headmaster of a Junior High School may not be selected by the selection committee and his interest, therefore, may be protected. The said exercise ought to have been done when the Junior High School has been raised to High School but the same has not been done. 35. Hon'ble Single Judge while dealing with the case of Dr.(Smt.) Sushila Gupta (supra) could not take notice of the aforesaid provision on account of which he proceeded to hold that the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Act to be applicable. The said observations are not in conflict with the present finding in any manner but what seems to be more reasonable is that Chapter II of Regulation 2(g) could not be taken note of while rendering the judgment by Hon'ble Single Judge and so to that extent the aforesaid judgment can only be said to be per in-curium. 36. The selection process has been initiated. In view of the provisions indicated herein above the process of selection can not be faulted in any manner. The vacancy has also fallen vacant and, therefore, the selection can be made against the aforesaid vacancy is valid even if the vacancy had not fallen vacant then also the aforesaid exercise of selection of Headmaster of upgraded Junior High School was a necessary requirement. 37. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the opposite parties on the case of Commissioner Lucknow Division and others Vs. Kumari Prem Lata Misra (Supra) does not come to rescue of the opposite party on account of the fact that issue in the said case was involved in regard to the status of a Basic section of Intermediate College and it was found that basic section of an Intermediate College can not be termed as a part of the recognized institution. 38. So far the Junior High School is concerned, the recognition is granted by the Basic Shiksha Parishad and there is no other recognition except under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act as provided under Section 7 A of the Act. 38. So far the Junior High School is concerned, the recognition is granted by the Basic Shiksha Parishad and there is no other recognition except under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act as provided under Section 7 A of the Act. In the aforesaid case it was found that the basic sections were being run by a separate Managing Committee and so it was not governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder and will not be supervised by the Managing Committee as contemplated under Section 16 A of the Intermediate Education Act. 39. On a harmonious reading of various provisions of the UP. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder and the provisions of the Act Nos.6 of 1979, 5 of 1982 and 24 of 1971, it becomes clear that the selection as proceeded by the Committee of Management can not be faulted in any manner. 40. In these circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Petition Dismissed.