The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to pass an order of single operation of account under Section 5(1) of the Salaries Act must be exercised sparingly and in accordance with the specified grounds and conditions, including the need for a recommendation from the regional committee and the existence of a specific condition precedent.

( 1 ) THE short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the District Inspector of Schools could pass an order of single operation of account under Section 5 (1) of the Uttar pradesh High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other employees) Act. 1971 because recognition of the newly elected Committee of Management and attestation of the signatures of the Manager was pending before the Regional Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 19. 12. 2000?

( 2 ) THE election of the Committee of Management. Gandhi Smarak Inter College, Jaingara. Agra (in brief management) was held on 12. 1. 2001. The management, which was functioning since earlier election, was re-elected. Shri Jal Singh who had been continuously elected as Manager since 1989 was re-elected. The papers were submitted by the re-elected management in the office of the District Inspector of Schools (in brief D. I. O. S.) on 15. 1. 2001 for granting recognition to the management and for attesting the signatures of Sri Jal Singh. While the matter for grant of recognition was pending, the salary bill of teachers and employees of the institution for the months of January. February and March, 2001 was passed under the Joint signatures of the d. I. O. S. and Jal Singh. The D. l. O. S. passed an order on 3. 4. 2001 of single operation of accounts under Section 5 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (in brief the Salaries Act), as the matter for grant of recognition of management had been referred to the Regional Joint. Director of education. Agra, (in brief R. J. D. E.) for consideration by regional committee which was likely to take time and the term of earlier management had expired. It is this order dated 3. 4. 2001 which has been challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition.

( 3 ) SRI Ramesh Upadhyaya the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the order is palpably erroneous and against law. that it cannot be permitted to continue even for a day, as it is a serious inroad on the functioning of an elected body. The learned counsel submitted that it was an extraordinary case as the illegality of the order is apparent on the face of it and this court may in the exercise of its power quash the order as no factual controversy is involved. The learned counsel on merits submitted that there was no rival dispute of management and the entire earlier management was re-elected on 12. 1. 2001. He submitted that once the papers were received on 15. 1. 2001 in the office of the D. I. O. S. the regional committee constituted under the Government order dated 19. 12. 2000 or the D. I. O. S. could not delay the grant of recognition or attestation of the signatures of the Manager. He further urged that the regional committee could, not direct the d. I. O. S. nor the D. I. O. S. on his own could pass an order for single operation on the ground that there was likelihood of delay in the matter of grant of recognition by the committee.

( 4 ) ON the other hand Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh. the learned brief holder State of U. P. appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned order and urged that once the term of the earlier management has expired and till the recognition of the newly elected management the committee or the D. I. O. S. would be justified in passing an order of single operation of account in the Interest of the staff of the Institution.

( 5 ) SINCE from the documents filed by the petitioners, it is clear that the election of the management was held before the expiry of the term and that is not disputed in the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in his submission that this petition may be disposed of at the admission stage without calling for any counter-affidavit. Further whether the impugned order could be passed merely because the papers for recognit