JUDGMENT By the Court.—This special appeal seeks to impugn the correctness of an order of the learned Single Judge dated 13 November 2013. 2. By the judgment under challenge, the learned Single Judge dismissed a petition seeking the setting aside of an order dated 16 July 2013 passed by the District Inspector of Schools and an order dated 24 July 2013 of the Joint Director of Education. The Joint Director of Education has directed the appointment of an Authorised Controller in the institution of the appellants on the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management. The appellants conduct a recognised institution upto the Intermediate level, which receives grant-in-aid from the State Government. The institution is governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Committee of Management was elected on 17 December 2008. The District Inspector of Schools on 15 January 2009 attested the signature of the second appellant as Manager. On 23 November 2001, the Committee of Management passed a resolution adopting a new scheme of administration by which the term of the Committee of Management was enhanced from three years to five years. The Joint Director of Education by an order dated 8 December 2011 approved the resolution of the Committee of Management. 3. The case of the appellants was that though under the scheme of administration, as originally envisaged, the term of the Committee of Management (which had been elected on 17 December 2008) would come to an end on 16 December 2011, by virtue of the amendment which has been approved by the Joint Director of Education, the existing Committee of Management was entitled to continue until 16 December 2013. The appellants were aggrieved because the District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 16 July 2013, recommended the appointment of an Authorised Controller to the Joint Director of Education on the ground that the three years’ term of the existing Committee of Management had come to an end as well as by the order of the Joint Director of Education appointing an Authorised Controller. 4. The Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act 1921 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) governs and regulates the affairs of the institution in question. The institution is a recognised Intermediate College within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the Act. 4. The Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act 1921 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) governs and regulates the affairs of the institution in question. The institution is a recognised Intermediate College within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the Act. Under Section 16-A of the Act, it has been envisaged that there shall be a scheme of administration for every institution which shall, amongst other things, provide for the constitution of a Committee of Management which is vested with the authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution. Sub-section (5) of Section 16-A of the Act requires that the scheme of administration of every institution shall be subject to the approval of the Director and no amendment to or change in the scheme of administration shall be made at any time without the prior approval of the Director. Sub-section (6) of Section 16-A of the Act provides that every recognized institution shall be managed in accordance with the scheme of administration framed under and in accordance with sub-section (1) to sub-section (5) and Sections 16-B and 16-C. The regulations which have been framed under the Act inter alia, deal with the scheme of administration. Regulation 14 provides the principles on which approval to a scheme of administration shall be accorded. Amongst them, in clause b is the procedure for constituting a Committee of Management and the term of its office. 5. A circular was issued by the Director of Education on 4 August 2003. The circular relates to the enhancement in the term of the Committee of Management from three years to five years. By this circular, the Director prescribed that besides requiring the resolution of the general body, the enhanced term from three years to five years will take effect in respect of the elections which are held after the amendments have been approved. In other words, the circular of the Director envisages that the benefit of the enhancement of the term from three years to five years will not enure to the Committee of Management which had been elected prior to the amendment of the scheme of administration. Hence, the benefit of the enhanced term would not be available to the Committee of Management, which had passed the proposal for enhancing the term. 6. Hence, the benefit of the enhanced term would not be available to the Committee of Management, which had passed the proposal for enhancing the term. 6. A Full Bench of this Court in Committee of Management, Saltnat Bahadur Post Graduate College, Badlapur, Jaunpur and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (5) ADJ 326 (FB), was constituted in order to resolve a conflict between two decisions of the Division Benches of this Court. These judgments of the Division Benches were in (i) The Committee of Management, M.M.I. Inter College, Bijnor v. Dy. Director of Education, 10th Circle and others, 1994 (24) ALR 410; and (ii) Committee of Management, Arya Kanya Inter College, Bulandshahar and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (10) ADJ 698 . 7. The learned Single Judge in that case had referred the following two questions for determination by the Full Bench: (1) Whether the amendment will become effective from the date of the amendment? (2) Whether the amendment, extending the term of the Committee of Management, will apply to the existing Committee of Management, which has made the amendment or it applies to the Committee of Management which will be formed after the election being held after the amendment? The Full Bench held on the first question that an amendment to the scheme of administration will become effective from the date of the amendment. The second question which was referred for decision was answered as follows: “The second question is answered by holding that the amendment, extending or curtailing the term of the Committee of Management, will become effective immediately and as a result, then existing Committee shall have its term extended or modified in accordance with the amendment. We may add here by way of precaution that if the authority competent to make the amendment itself chooses to specify that the amendment shall be effective from a future date then the amendment shall apply from such later date as may be specified. Similarly, if the approving authority has the necessary powers to lay down similar stipulation, then the amendment may apply as per conditions or stipulations laid down by the approving authority. In absence of such special feature or stipulation, the amendment shall apply to the Committee of Management existing on the date amendment comes into force.” 8. Similarly, if the approving authority has the necessary powers to lay down similar stipulation, then the amendment may apply as per conditions or stipulations laid down by the approving authority. In absence of such special feature or stipulation, the amendment shall apply to the Committee of Management existing on the date amendment comes into force.” 8. Now before we consider the impact of the judgment of the Full Bench, it would be necessary to note that the case which was referred to the Full Bench involved the application of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 since the petitioner before the Court was a Committee of Management of a Post Graduate College, which was governed by the Act and by the Statutes of the University. The Full Bench considered the correctness of the view which was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management, Arya Kanya Inter College (supra). The judgment of the Division Bench in Committee of Management, Arya Kanya Inter College (supra) involved the elections of the Committee of Management in respect of an institution which was governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Division Bench in that case took note of the circular which was issued by the Director of Education on 4 August 2003. The Division Bench was of the view that since the Director of Education had clarified that where by an amendment of the scheme of administration, the enhancement in the term of the elected office bearers is approved, this would take effect only in respect of the Committee of Management of which election is held subsequent to the date of the resolution proposing the amendment in the scheme of administration. The view of the Division Bench was that since under sub-section (5) of Section 16-A of the Act an amendment to or change in the scheme of administration requires the prior approval of the Director, the powers of the Director would include within its ambit all ancillary powers for the effective exercise of the powers conferred in the statutory provisions. Hence, in the view of the Division Bench, the Director had the competence to impose such conditions while approving the amendment as may be fair and just. Hence, in the view of the Division Bench, the Director had the competence to impose such conditions while approving the amendment as may be fair and just. In that context, the Division Bench held as follows : “We, therefore, arrive at a conclusion that the Director of Education, while approving the amendments in the scheme of administration, is entitled to impose fair and just conditions. It is within his competence to provide that if any existing Committee of Management seeks amendments in the clause provided for the term of the elected office bearers (in the facts of the present case 3 years to 5 years), then while approving such amendments in the scheme of administration, it is always open to the Director of Education to provide that such extension of term (3 years to 5 years) would be applicable only in respect of Committee of Management, which is elected subsequent to the date of resolution of the Committee of Management proposing amendment. Such condition imposed by the Director of Education cannot be said to be arbitrary and unfair. The condition so imposed would be within his statutory competence and within the framework of the power as conferred by Section 16-A (5) of 1921 Act. 9. Moreover, in the view of the Division Bench, it was open to the Director, in whom the power to grant his prior approval has been vested by Section 16-A (5) of the Act, to issue guidelines by way of a circular, which would bind the Regional Joint Directors of Education who are only his delegatees. The issuance of such circular was in the view of the Division Bench necessary so that all the Regional Joint Directors of Education should act in an uniform manner. In that context, the Division Bench made the following observations: “As already recorded above, power to approve the amendments in the scheme of administration continues to be that of the Director and the Regional Joint Directors of Education are only delegatees, who in fact exercise the power of the Director only. There are large number of Regional Joint Directors of Education in the State of Uttar Pradesh appointed for various regions; it is well within the competence of the Director (principal authority) to issue circulars/letters for regulating the exercise of power to approve the amendments in the scheme of administration by the delegatees in an uniform manner. There are large number of Regional Joint Directors of Education in the State of Uttar Pradesh appointed for various regions; it is well within the competence of the Director (principal authority) to issue circulars/letters for regulating the exercise of power to approve the amendments in the scheme of administration by the delegatees in an uniform manner. Such circulars requiring the delegatees to act uniformally, while approving the amendments in the scheme of administration has the effect of treating all similarly situate persons in similar manner and at par. It further obviates the chances of different orders being passed by the different delegatees, Regional Joint Directors of Education in respect of similar proposals seeking amendments in the scheme of administration qua extension of the terms of the elected Committee of Management. Such circular or letter of the Director is therefore, in furtherance of his principal power to approve the amendments in the scheme of administration and for ensuring that delegatees, while approving the amendments in the scheme of administration treat all similarly situate Committee of Managements in the same manner.” 10. Now it is necessary to note that in the judgment of the Full Bench, the decision of the Division Bench in Committee of Management, Arya Kanya Inter College (supra) was not disapproved. What the Full Bench held was that certain observations contained in one of the paragraphs of the judgment in Committee of Management, Arya Kanya Inter College were an obiter dicta and did not constitute a precedent. Those observations which have been specifically referred to in paragraph 13 of the reported judgment of the Full Bench are to the following effect : “Even otherwise, we feel that it is appropriate and it is fitness of things that the Committee of Management, which is elected in accordance with the provisions of the scheme of administration must be permitted to continue only for the term, which was applicable at the time of the elections. The extension of the term so provided by seeking permission of its own term and by suggesting amendments in the scheme of administration cannot be approved of by this Court.” It was in this view of the matter that the Full Bench held that there was really no divergence of opinion on the principles which have been enunciated in the two earlier Division Bench judgments. 11. 11. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has held that in view of the circular which has been issued by the Director of Education on 4 August 2003, any amendment in the scheme of administration of the institution for extending the term by two years, would be applicable to the term of office of the newly elected Committee of Management after the election is held on a date subsequent to the date on which the proposal for extending the term of office is accepted by the Joint Director of Education. The Director of Education had in fact, in the present case, clarified by a communication dated 3 December 2012 that the enhancement of the term of the Committee of Management from three years to five years will not enure to the benefit of the existing Committee of Management which has been elected before the resolution for the enhancement of the term has been passed and would apply to the Committee of Management which would be constituted after the elections were held afresh. 12. On behalf of the appellants, it has been submitted that the learned Single Judge while taking note of the judgment of the Full Bench and of the earlier decision of the Division Bench in Committee of Management, Arya Kanya Inter College (supra) has lost sight of the fact that in the case before the Division Bench the approval which was granted by the Joint Director of Education contained a specific provision to the effect that the benefit of the extended term will entail to the Committee of Management of which elections were held subsequent to the date of approval. In the present case, it was submitted that the Joint Director of Education while approving the amendment did not impose any such stipulation and hence, the enhancement of the term must also enure to the benefit of the existing Committee of Management. 13. It is not possible to accept the submission for more than one reason. Firstly, as the judgment of the Full Bench now holds, if the approving authority has the power in law to lay down a stipulation that an amendment shall be effective from a future date, then the amendment would apply in accordance with the condition or stipulation laid down by the approving authority. Firstly, as the judgment of the Full Bench now holds, if the approving authority has the power in law to lay down a stipulation that an amendment shall be effective from a future date, then the amendment would apply in accordance with the condition or stipulation laid down by the approving authority. In the absence of any such special feature or stipulation, the amendment shall apply to the Committee of Management existing on the date on which the amendment comes into force. Applying this observation in the context of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, it is clear that sub-section (5) of Section 16-A of the Act requires the prior approval of the Director to every amendment or change in the scheme of administration. Since the Director is vested with a statutory power to grant or refuse his prior approval, incidental to the exercise of power, it is open to the Director to stipulate that the approval shall not enure to the body which has proposed by a resolution, the enhancement of the term. Secondly, the Director has, by his circular of 4 August 2003, clarified the matter beyond doubt by stipulating that when the term of a Committee of Management is enhanced from three years to five years by an amendment in the scheme of administration, the benefit of the amendment will enure only to the Committee of Management that would be elected after fresh elections are held. As a Division Bench has held in the Committee of Management, Arya Kanya Inter College (supra), such a provision has been made by the Director in his circular to ensure that all the Joint Directors subject to his control who act as his delegates should follow a uniform approach in dealing with such cases. Otherwise, there would be a grievance of discriminating treatment if the amendments are approved in the case of certain institutions with immediate effect giving a benefit of an enhanced term to the existing Committee, while in respect of other Committees the enhancement of term would apply only to the bodies elected in future. Clearly, the Director of Education who is vested with the statutory power under Section 16-A (5) of the Act has the power to impose such a condition that ensures even handed treatment. Clearly, the Director of Education who is vested with the statutory power under Section 16-A (5) of the Act has the power to impose such a condition that ensures even handed treatment. If the Director himself decides every case, it would be open to him to impose such a stipulation on a case by case basis in every case. However, since the power of the Director is delegated to the Joint Directors, he has made general stipulations to that effect, which must have equal force. The object is clear and it is to ensure that the enhancement of the term of a Committee of Management does not become a method of merely seeking continuance in office by the bodies of the existing Managements. Thirdly, there is no reason to hold that there has been any change in this position by the issuance on 25 August 2011 by the State Government of a model scheme of administration. Clearly, despite the circular of the State Government dated 25 August 2011 providing for a model scheme of administration, it has been envisaged that the Managements of the concerned institutions would have to bring their schemes of administration in line with the model scheme. That would not, in any manner, affect the statutory powers which have been conferred upon the Director under Section 16-A (5) of the Act. 14. For these reasons, we have arrived at a conclusion that the learned Single Judge was not in error in declining to interfere with the order passed by the Joint Director of Education. Besides, in either view of the matter, it has now been clear that since the election was held on 17 December 2008, even the extended term of five years has come to an end. Consequently, there is no warrant for interference in the special appeal. 15. The special appeal shall, accordingly, stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.