JUDGMENT : Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Kailash Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the sixth respondent/caveator and Sri A.K. Roy, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents. 2. The present Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23.07.2019 passed in WritA No.10710 of 2019 (Smt. Dharmraji Devi Ganga Prasad Singh Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya And Another Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others), whereby the writ petition has been dismissed by assigning the reason that the same had been filed by a person not competent to file the petition. The learned Single Judge has, however, granted liberty to the Committee of Management of the petitioner institution to file a writ petition. 3. The judgment passed by the writ court is sought to be assailed principally on the ground that since the dispute involved in the case related to a Class-IV employee in the petitioner institution, it was not correct to say that the writ petition could be filed only by the Committee of Management and not by the Principal of the institution. 4. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has sought to draw attention of this Court to the provisions contained under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 the Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed there under, to submit that as per the statuary frame work, it is the Principal of the institution, who is solely responsible and has all the necessary powers with regard to the appointment, promotion and punishment of a ClassIV employee and that it is only in respect of teachers and employees other than ClassIV employees that the power with regard to the aforesaid matters vests with the Committee of Management. 5. The learned Senior Counsel has also pointed out that the decision of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Gangabux Kanauriya Gandhi Inter College, Deoria Vs. Deputy Director of Education, Seventh Region Gorakhpur and Others 2000 (3) ALR 314, which has been relied upon in the judgment under appeal, was a case where the educational authority had refused to accord approval to the management's decision to terminate the services of a person who was working as a teacher in the institution in question. Deputy Director of Education, Seventh Region Gorakhpur and Others 2000 (3) ALR 314, which has been relied upon in the judgment under appeal, was a case where the educational authority had refused to accord approval to the management's decision to terminate the services of a person who was working as a teacher in the institution in question. Contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that taking notice of the fact that under the relevant regulations it was the Committee of Management which was the appointing authority, the appeal filed before the Deputy Direction of Education having been preferred in the name of the College, was held not to be an appeal in the eyes of law and for the said reason, the Court had refused to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents submit that in the instant case the writ petition has been preferred against an order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur the DIOS, exercising powers under Section 3(3) of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees), Act, 1971 the Act, 1971, where under the responsibility with regard to payment of salaries is that of the management, and accordingly, it was only the Committee of Management which could have challenged the said order. It has been pointed out that the matter does not relate to either the appointment or initiation of any disciplinary proceedings against a Class-IV employee, and as such, the assertion on behalf of the appellant that the Principal of the institution was competent to prefer the writ petition, had rightly been turned down by the learned Single Judge. 7. The record of the case indicates that the principal grievance sought to be raised in the writ petition was against the order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the DIOS, which is an order passed in exercise of powers conferred under subsection (3) of Section 3 of the Act, 1971, which empowers the DIOS to ensure payment of salary of a teacher or employee, in case of any default on part of the management. 8. 8. A plain reading of the aforesaid order which was sought to be challenged in the writ petition indicates that despite earlier directions having been issued to the management for submission of salary bill of the sixth respondent (a Class-IV employee), the management had defaulted and consequently a notice dated 27.03.2019 was issued to the Committee of Management and it was subsequent thereto that the DIOS proceeded to pass the order dated 28.03.2019 in exercise of powers conferred under subsection (3) of Section 3 of the Act, 1971. 9. The Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and others Employees), Act, 1971 was enacted to regulate the payment of salaries to teachers and other employees of High Schools and Intermediate Colleges, receiving aid out of State funds and to provide for matters connected therewith. The object of the Act is to secure regular and prompt payment of salaries to teachers and other employees of the High Schools and Intermediate Colleges in the State and for the said purpose the machinery and procedure to regulate the payment has been provided in the Act itself. 10. In terms of subsection (1) of Section 10 of the Act 1971, a duty is cast upon the State Government for payment of salaries of teachers and employees of every institution which is recognized under Intermediate Education Act, 1971 and is receiving maintenance grant from the State Government. The procedure for payment of salaries is provided for under Section 5 which inter alia provides for the operation of a separate account to be opened jointly by a representative of the management and by the inspector or such other officer as may be authorized by the inspector in that behalf for the purposes of disbursement of salaries of the teachers and employees of the institution in question. 11. Section 3 of the Act, 1971, provides for payment of salary within time and without unauthorized deduction and under subsection (3) thereof the DIOS has been saddled with the statutory duty of ensuring payment of salary of teachers and other employees of a recognized institution within a prescribed time frame. It also provides for the contingency that in case of any default on part of the management, the Inspector may take necessary steps for ensuring the payment of salary. 12. It also provides for the contingency that in case of any default on part of the management, the Inspector may take necessary steps for ensuring the payment of salary. 12. For ease of reference, Section 3 of the Act, 1971 is being extracted herein below: "3. Payment of salary within time and without unauthorised deduction.— (1) Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, the salary of a teacher or other employee of an institution in respect of any period after the thirty first day of March, 1971 shall be paid to him before the expiry of the twentieth day, or such earlier day as the State Government may, by general or special order in that behalf appoint, of the month next following the month in respect of which or any part of which it is payable. (2) The salary shall subject to the provisions of subsection (3), be paid without deduction of any kind except those authorised by the regulations or by any rules made under the Act or by any other law for the time being in force. (3) Where the salary of a teacher employee of an institution is not paid in accordance with subsection (1) due to any default on the part of the management, the Inspector may, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, pay or cause to be paid within ten days from the date mentioned in subsection (1) of Section 4 at the rate of salary last drawn by such teacher or employee as the case may be, and in case fresh appointment at the rate of the minimum of the pay scale in which he has been appointed and any adjustment in respect of such payment shall, thereafter be made as soon as possible." 13. In terms of Section 4 of the Act, 1971, the Inspector is empowered to make inspection of the institution with regard to payment of salaries and in case of any default by the management adequate measures for enforcement of the provisions and directions under the Act have been provided for under Section 6 of the said Act. 14. Under Section 11, punishment and penalties have also been provided, in case of default committed by manager or any other person vested with the authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution, in complying with the provisions of the Act, 1971. 15. 14. Under Section 11, punishment and penalties have also been provided, in case of default committed by manager or any other person vested with the authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution, in complying with the provisions of the Act, 1971. 15. The rules framed for carrying out the purpose of the Act 1971, namely the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and others Employees), Rules 1993, also provide that the responsibility for submission of requisition and the bill relating to the grant is that of the manager. 16. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, thus indicates that as per the statutory frame work and the scheme, as provided for under the Act, 1971 and the Rules framed there under, the responsibility for ensuring submission of necessary papers for the purposes of payment of salaries of teachers and others employees is of the management of the Institution. 17. In the instant case, the order dated 28.03.2019, under challenge in the writ petition, is an order passed by the DIOS, exercising powers under subsection (3) of Section 3 of the Act 1971, after recording the default of the management in submission of the salary bill. 18. In the said circumstances, the judgment of the learned Single Judge where under it has been held that the Committee of Management of the institution in question is the only body which could have filed the writ petition and not the Principal of the institution, cannot be faulted with. 19. No palpable infirmity or perversity has been pointed out in the judgment under appeal so as to warrant interference. 20. We are therefore not inclined to interfere with the judgment dated 23.07.2019 passed in Writ-A No. 10710 of 2019. The present Special Appeal is thus liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 21. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants at this stage has referred to certain disciplinary proceedings which are stated to have been initiated against the sixth respondent. 22. The present Special Appeal is thus liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 21. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants at this stage has referred to certain disciplinary proceedings which are stated to have been initiated against the sixth respondent. 22. In this regard we may only say that the issue with regard to initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the sixth respondent was not the subject matter of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, therefore, the dismissal of the writ petition and also the present special appeal would not in any manner effect any proceedings in that regard, if the same have already been initiated.