JUDGMENT : IRSHAD ALI, J. 1. Heard Sri G.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and to Sri Alok Sharma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Sri Vindhya Washini Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.8. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the orders 08.05.2018, 25.05.2018, contained as Annexure Nos.7 and 8 to the writ petition as well as the order dated 14.01.2019, contained as Annexure No.37 to the writ petition. 3. Brief fact of the case is that Sri Kanhaiya Bux Singh Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Madhawapur Tikri, Nawabganj, District Gonda was initially a junior high school from Class VIth to VIIIth and vide order dated 26.04.1980, recognition to the primary section was granted w.e.f. 01.07.1979. The junior high school from Class VIth to VIIIth was taken in the list of grant in aid vide Government Order dated 30.03.1989 along with other Vidyalayas and name of the petitioner's institution finds place at serial No.24. The junior high school was upgraded as high school vide order dated 17.03.2004 and subsequently upgraded as intermediate college vide order dated 04.09.2009. 4. The allegation in the complaint is that at the time of taking the junior high school on the grant in aid list, in the application forms, it has been stated that there is no primary section attached to the junior high school. 5. Another allegation is that by showing back date appointment of the teachers and other staff, payment of salary has been obtained by several institutions including the petitioner's institution with the collusion of the office of the District Basic Education Officer and Finance and Accounts Officer of the said office. It has also been pointed out that in spite of ban imposed in regard to the appointment of clerical posts as well as on the post of teachers, by showing back date appointment, approval has been accorded to the appointment of teachers and other staff, who are getting salary from the State Exchequer. 6. Taking note of the complaint, an inquiry Committee has been constituted to inquire into the allegations levelled against certain institutions of District Gonda. 7. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the institution in question was recognized as Junior High School under the Basic Education Act, 1972. 6. Taking note of the complaint, an inquiry Committee has been constituted to inquire into the allegations levelled against certain institutions of District Gonda. 7. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the institution in question was recognized as Junior High School under the Basic Education Act, 1972. Subsequently, it was upgraded as High School and Intermediate College and now it is governed under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short, "the Act"). 8. In regard to the financial irregularities found upon inspection against an institution recognized under the provisions of "the Act", there is full fledged procedure prescribed under Section 16-D of "the Act", to initiate proceeding against the Committee of Management and the Director of Secondary Education is empowered to issue show cause notice to the Committee of Management on the irregularities found and may make recommendation to the State Government to take action by superseding the Committee of Management and to appoint an authorized controller over the institution to remove the difficulties and irregularities going on in the institution. 9. By means of the impugned orders, direction has been issued to make inquiry in regard to the petitioner's institution by the officers of the Basic Education Department, which has been impugned in the present writ petition. 10. In the present writ petition, it has been alleged that some complaint was lodged to the office of the Chief Minister against the petitioners' institution and thereafter, an inquiry was made and report was submitted in the matter. Thereafter, some other complaints have been filed by unknown persons to the Chief Minister and vide order dated 08.05.2018, direction was issued to constitute a three member's Committee to look into the matter. 11. In pursuance to the order passed by the Chief Minister, a five member's Committee has been constituted to conduct the inquiry consisting of the Secretary Basic Education, the Special Secretary Basic Education, the Director Basic Education, the Finance Controller Basic Education, the Regional Assistant Director Basic, Faizabad Mandal. The said five member's committee held its meeting on 14.01.2019 and has taken several decisions as mentioned in the minutes of the meeting circulated on 15.01.2019. 12. Sri G.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the institution in question is governed under the provisions of the Act, therefore, the inquiry by the officers of the Basic Education Department is not permissible in law. 12. Sri G.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the institution in question is governed under the provisions of the Act, therefore, the inquiry by the officers of the Basic Education Department is not permissible in law. The petitioner's institution has been un-necessarily harassed with repeated inquiries, which is also not permissible in law. 13. He next submitted that the inquiry is against the officers of the Basic Education Department and Finance and Accounts Officer appointed in the office of the District Basic Education Officer. The Government under the relevant acts and rules is empowered to make inquiry against the officers of the State Government of Basic Education Department. 14. In case the inquiry is against the officers, the institution in question should not be un-necessarily harassed by asking papers regarding the appointment of staff and approval for providing salary from the State Exchequer. 15. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that there are large number of irregularities in appointment and grant of approval of the teachers and other staff of the institution. He next submitted that the institutions are private aided institutions run and managed by the private Committee of Management. Thus, in any case, if there is large number of complaints in regard to the selection and appointment as well as grant of approval for payment of salary, then there is no illegality in the impugned orders proceeding to make inquiry in the matter. 16. Having heard the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record. 17. To resolve the controversy, Section 16-D of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is being quoted below:- "[(1) The Director may cause a recognised institution to be inspected from time to time. (2) The Director may direct a management to remove any defect or deficiency found on inspection or otherwise. 17. To resolve the controversy, Section 16-D of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is being quoted below:- "[(1) The Director may cause a recognised institution to be inspected from time to time. (2) The Director may direct a management to remove any defect or deficiency found on inspection or otherwise. (3) If on the receipt of information or otherwise, the Director is satisfied that-- (i) the Committee of Management of an institution has failed to comply with the judgment of any court or any direction made under this Act or any other law for the time being in force; or (ii) the Committee has failed to appoint teaching staff possessing such qualifications as are necessary for the purpose of ensuring the maintenance of academic standard in the institution or has appointed or retained in service any teaching or non-teaching staff in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the Regulations; or (iii) any dispute with respect to the right claimed by different persons to be lawful office-bearers of the Committee of Management has affected the smooth and orderly administration of the institution concerned; or (iv) the Committee has persistently failed to provide the institution with such adequate and proper accommodation, library, furniture, stationery, laboratory equipment or other facilities as are necessary for the efficient administration of such institution; or (v) the Committee has substantially diverted, misapplied or misappropriated the property of the institution to its detriment or has transferred any property in contravention of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Educational Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Assets) Act, 1974 (U. P. Act No. 3 of 1975); or (vi) the draft of the Scheme of Administration has not been submitted within the time allowed there for under Section 16-B, or that the Management of the institution is being conducted otherwise than in accordance with the Scheme of Administration or the affairs of the institution are being otherwise mismanaged; or (vii) the Scheme of Administration in relation to an institution, approved before the commencement of the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1980, is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the management of the institution has failed to alter or modify it within a reasonable time despite notice under Section 16-CCC, he may refer the case to the Board for withdrawal of recognition of such institution, or issue notice to the Committee of Management to show cause within thirty days from the date of receipt of such notice why an order under sub-section (4) should not be made. (4) Where the Committee of Management of an institution fails to show cause within the time allowed under sub-section (3) or within such extended time as the Directory may from time to time allow, or where the Director is, after considering the cause shown by the Committee of Management, satisfied that any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (3) exists, he may recommend to the State Government to appoint an Authorised Controller for that institution, and thereupon, the State Government may, by order, for reasons to be recorded, authorise any person (hereinafter referred to as the Authorised Controller) to take over, for such period not exceeding two years, as may be specified, the Management of such institution and its properties : Provided that if the State Government is of opinion that it is expedient so to do in order to continue to secure the proper management of the institution and its properties, it may, from time to time, extend the operation of the order, for such period, not exceeding one year at a time, as it may specify, so however, that the total period of operation of the order, including the period specified in the initial order, but excluding the period specified in sub-section (8), does not exceed five years: Provided further that if at the expiration of the said period of five years, there is no lawfully constituted Committee of Management of the institution, the Authorised Controller shall continue to function as such, until the State Government is satisfied that a Committee of Management has been lawfully constituted. (5) If on the receipt of information or otherwise, the State Government is of opinion that in relation to an institution, the ground mentioned in clause (iii) or clause (v) of sub-section (3) exists, and that the interest of the institution calls for immediate action, it may, notwithstanding anything contained in the said sub-section, issue notice to the Management of such institution to show cause within fifteen days from the date of receipt of such notice why an Authorised Controller be not appointed in respect of such institution. (6) Where the Committee of Management of the concerned institution fails to show cause within the time allowed under sub-section (5), or within such extended time as the State Government may, from time to time allow, or where the State Government is, after considering the cause shown by the Committee of Management, satisfied that any of the grounds mentioned in clause (iii) or clause (v) of sub-section (3) exists, it may, by order and for reasons to be recorded, appoint an Authorised Controller in respect of such institution, and thereupon, the provisions of sub-section (4) shall, mutatis mutandis apply. (7) Every notice issued by the Director under sub-section (3) on or before the service of the notice referred to in sub-section (5) and not finally disposed of on the date of such service shall, with effect from the said date, be deemed to have been placed in abeyance : Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall be deemed to prevent the Director to take action upon grounds other than those mentioned in clauses (iii) and (v) of sub-section (3) in case the notice issued by the State Government under sub-section (5) is discharged. (8) If the State Government is of opinion that immediate suspension of the Committee of Management is also necessary or expedient in the interest of the institution concerned, it may, while issuing notice under sub-section (5), by order and for reasons to be recorded, suspend the Committee of Management and make such arrangement as it thinks proper for managing the affairs of the institution pending the order that may subsequently be made under sub-section (6): Provided that the suspension shall not remain in force for more than six months from the date it becomes effective. Explanation I.--For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that in computing the period of time specified in sub-section (4) or sub-section (8), the time during which the operation of the order was suspended by the High Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution shall be excluded. Explanation II.--Nothing in sub-section (4) or sub-section (6) shall preclude the State Government from revoking an order of appointment of an Authorised Controller appointed under any of the said provisions. Explanation II.--Nothing in sub-section (4) or sub-section (6) shall preclude the State Government from revoking an order of appointment of an Authorised Controller appointed under any of the said provisions. (9) Nothing in this section shall be construed to confer on the Authorised Controller appointed under sub-section (4) or sub-section (8), the power to transfer any immovable property belonging to the institution (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 for the institution from the State Government or the Government of India). (10) Any order made under this section shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment or in any instrument (including any Scheme of Administration relating to the management and control of the institution or its property): Provided that the property of the institution and any income there from shall continue to be applied for the purposes of the institution as provided in any such instrument. (11) The Director may give to the Authorised Controller such directions as he may deem necessary for the proper management of the institution or its properties, and the Authorised Controller shall carry out those directions. (12) No order made by the Board withdrawing recognition in pursuance of a reference made under sub-section (3) and no order made or direction given under this section by the Director or the State Government shall be called in question in any court, and no injunctions shall be granted by any court in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this section. (13) The powers conferred by this Section shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of any powers conferred on the State Government or the Authorised Controller under any other law for the time being in force. (14) Nothing contained in sub-sections (3) to (13) shall apply to all institutions established and administered by a minority referred to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India." 18. On perusal of the provisions quoted above, it records that in case financial irregularities are found against an institution, to remove the irregularities, the Committee of Management can be superseded by appointing an authorized controller at the level of State Government. 19. On perusal of the provisions quoted above, it records that in case financial irregularities are found against an institution, to remove the irregularities, the Committee of Management can be superseded by appointing an authorized controller at the level of State Government. 19. Vide impugned orders, in regard to the complaint lodged for large scale fraud and manipulation in appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers and other staff of the institution, five member's Committee has been constituted to inquire into the allegations. The officers of the district level of Basic Education Department are also under inquiry in regard to the appointment, approval and payment of salaries. 20. One of the allegations against the institution referred in the complaint are that at the time of taking of the institutions on the grant in aid list at junior high school level, in the application, it has been disclosed that there is no primary school attached to the junior high school. In spite of that, teachers and other staff have been appointed in the institutions, who have been upgraded now at high school and intermediate level and by playing fraud and manipulation, they are getting salary from the State exchequer. 21. In the opinion of the Court, that even if the institution has been upgraded upto level of high school or intermediate and is governed under the provisions of the Act of 1921, then in case, if it is found that the primary school, which was granted recognition in the year 1980 after taking the institution i.e. junior high school on the grant in aid list in the year 1983, then it is very relevant question to be inquired into that whether the institution has been brought within the purview of Payment of Salaries Act by concealment of fact or not and whether in making appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers, the provisions governing service conditions of appointment was followed or not and whether the appointments have been made anti-date and arrears of salary have been obtained with the extraneous consideration with collusion of the officers appointed in the office of the District Basic Education Officer or not. 22. An inquiry Committee has been constituted to inquire into the allegations of the complaint in regard to certain institutions of District Gonda. 22. An inquiry Committee has been constituted to inquire into the allegations of the complaint in regard to certain institutions of District Gonda. If the Inquiry Committee found that the institutions and the officers are involved in large scale fraud and manipulation in appointment and payment of salary, then proposal shall be made to the respective department, who has been empowered to take action against the institutions or the officers in accordance with the provisions contained under the act and regulations applicable to the said institution. 23. At this stage, Section 16-D of the Act does not come into picture, as there is no proceeding initiated against the Committee of Management of the petitioner's institution for super session of management in exercise of power given under Section 16-D of the Act. 24. If the inquiry Committee constituted to inquire into the allegations come to the conclusion that there are financial irregularities in regard to selection and appointment on the post of teachers and other staff, then on the said basis the proceeding shall be initiated against the petitioner's institution for super session of Committee of Management in as much as in other provisions against the institution. 25. This is not the stage available to the petitioner to challenge the inquiry proceeding initiated against the institutions of District Gonda against whom there are serious complaints of financial irregularities in payment of salary with the collusion of officers of Basic Education Department at district level. The officers are also under inquiry of the five member's Committee constituted under the order of State Government. 26. Sri G.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed an order dated 14.02.2019 before this Court passed in Writ Petition No.4479 (MS) of 2019, wherein this Court on examining the issue, has granted some protection, which is being quoted below: "12. This Court therefore, directs that in pursuance of the impugned orders the petitioner's institution may not be harassed unnecessarily. All papers relating to such Institutions regarding selection and appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff, and grant of approval for payment of salaries, allowance etc, can be summoned from the office of the Basic Education Officers and enquiries be completed. 13. It is clarified that this Court has not interfered in the enquiries that are being made in pursuance of the orders impugned against the officers of the Basic Education Department of Gonda. 13. It is clarified that this Court has not interfered in the enquiries that are being made in pursuance of the orders impugned against the officers of the Basic Education Department of Gonda. However the petitioner's institutions as aforesaid, should not be proceeded against till the next date of listing. 14. Let the counter affidavit be filed within three weeks and rejoinder affidavit be filed with one week thereafter. 15. List this matter again on 13.03.2019 before the appropriate Court. " 27. On its perusal, it is evident that it is an interim order, whereby the institution of the petitioner has been saved by restraining that the petitioner's institution should not proceeded against till the next date of listing. 28. The interim orders are not binding precedent, as has been held in paragraph No.21 of a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam Vs. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha, (2009) 5 SCC 694 , which is being quoted below: "21. A precedent is a judicial decision containing a principle, which forms an authoritative element termed as ratio decidendi. An interim order which does not finally and conclusively decide an issue cannot be a precedent. Any reasons assigned in support of such non-final interim order containing prima facie findings, are only tentative. Any interim directions issued on the basis of such prima facie findings are temporary arrangements to preserve the status quo till the matter is finally decided, to ensure that the matter does not become either infructuous or a fait accompli before the final hearing." 29. On perusal of Section 16-D of the Act, it is reflected that there are seven conditions in regard to exercise of power under Section 16-D of the Act and it empowers to the Director, Secondary Education to inspect the institution from time to time and to remove any difficulty or deficiency found on inspection or otherwise. 30. The condition laid down under Section 16-D of the Act is exercisable when the material under above referred seven clauses is found against the Committee of Management. 31. Here, the Committee of five member's is proceeding to inquire into the allegations levelled in the complaint and in case the complaints are found to be correct against the institutions of the petitioner, then the inquiry Committee may recommend to the appropriate authority for taking action against the Committee of Management. 31. Here, the Committee of five member's is proceeding to inquire into the allegations levelled in the complaint and in case the complaints are found to be correct against the institutions of the petitioner, then the inquiry Committee may recommend to the appropriate authority for taking action against the Committee of Management. Now, the stage of exercise of power under Section 16-D of the Act has not came. Thus, the petitioner is not aggrieved by the action of inquiry, as directed by the State Government. 32. By passing impugned orders, the petitioner is in no manner aggrieved at this stage. In case the Inquiry Committee finds some financial irregularities or illegality in making appointment against the petitioner's institution, then it is expected by this Court that for taking necessary action, procedure of principles of natural justice shall be followed and before taking any action against the Committee of Management, full opportunity shall be provided to the Committee of Management to file his defense before the competent authority. 33. On over all examination of the material on record, the Court is of the opinion that at this stage, the matter is under inquiry by appointing a Committee of Five Member's in regard to financial irregularities by the certain institutions including the petitioner's institution. No penalty or any order adverse to the institutions has been passed vide impugned orders. 34. Therefore, this Court declines to interfere in the inquiry initiated under the impugned orders. However, it is left open to the petitioner's institution to challenge, if any order is passed against him contrary to the act and rules applicable to the institution of the petitioner. 35. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 36. No order as to costs.