JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - The Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is by the Committee of Management of M. A, Samad Inter College, Bhadohi, district Varanasi, Haflz Mazhar Ali Ansari and Tirth Raj Pandey. The petitioners pray that the orders dated 16th of Oct., 1974 and 6th of Feb., 1975, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi and the Dy. Director, Education, Varanasi, disapproving the selection of the second and third petitioners as teachers in History and Sanskrit in the M. A. Samad Inter College, Bhadohi, be quashed. 2. The managing committee of M.A. Samad Inter College Bhadohi, appointed a selection committee for selecting one teacher each in History and Sanskrit, which in due course selected petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 for appointment to those posts. Principal of the institution then, as required by Section 16 (F) (2) of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), forwarded the necessary papers for obtaining the approval of the District Inspector of Schools on 4-9-74. In order to decide as to whether the selection made by the Committee should be approved or not, the District Inspector of Schools, by his order dated 13th of Sept., 1974, required the Principal to forward to him some more papers and reports. Requisite papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools on 7th of Oct., 1974, who, vide his order dated 16th Oct.,1974, disapproved the selection of the two petitioners. Dy. Director of Education, vide his order dated 6th of Feb. 1975, rejected the representation made by petitioner No. 1 and affirmed the order of the District Inspector of Schools disapproving the selection of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Being aggrieved, the three petitioners have now approached this Court. 3. First submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that as provided in Section 16 (F) (2) of the Act, the selection of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 stood approved when the district Inspector of Schools did not make any order either approving or disapproving the same within 14 days of 4th Sept., 1974 the date on which necessary papers in that connection were received by him. 2 and 3 stood approved when the district Inspector of Schools did not make any order either approving or disapproving the same within 14 days of 4th Sept., 1974 the date on which necessary papers in that connection were received by him. Action of the District Inspector of Schools in requiring the petitioners to furnish further information on 13th Sept., 1974, could not have the effect of extending the period within which the District Inspector of Schools had been under S. 16 (F) (2) of the Act, authorised to disapprove selection of teachers. 4. Section 16 (F) (2) of the Act reads thus : "The name of the selected candidate shall be forwarded for approval, in the case of a teacher, by the Principal or Headmaster to the Inspector, and, in the case of Principal or Headmaster, by the Chairman of the selection committee to the Regional Deputy Director Education. A statement showing the names, qualifications and other particulars, as may be prescribed, of all candidates who may have applied for selection shall also be sent along with the name of the selected candidate. The Inspector or Regional Deputy Director, Education, as the case may be, shall give his decision within two weeks of the receipt of the s relevant papers, failing which approval shall be deemed to have been accorded." 5. The section requires that papers in connection with the selection of candidates have to be forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools or the Regional Deputy Director, Education, as the case may be, for obtaining his approval. Those papers are to be accompanied by a statement showing the names, qualifications and other particulars as may be prescribed of all candidates who may have applied for selection. The Inspector or Regional Dy. Director, Education, is then required to give his decision within two weeks of the receipt of relevant papers. It is obvious that the outer limit of the period mentioned in the section is to be computed with reference to the date on which the relevant papers are received by the District Inspector of Schools or the Regional Dy. Director, Education. 6. No doubt the papers mentioned in S. 16 (F) (2) which are to be forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools would be relevant papers as contemplated by it. Director, Education. 6. No doubt the papers mentioned in S. 16 (F) (2) which are to be forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools would be relevant papers as contemplated by it. But then it cannot be said that those are the only papers that would be relevant in this regard. In our opinion, the papers which are required to be furnished to the District Inspector of Schools under the regulation framed under the Act, with a view to enable him to decide as to whether the selection made by the management should be approved by him or not, would also be relevant, and the period within which the inspector is enabled to disapprove the selection is to be computed with reference to the date on which all such papers are submitted to him. 7. Regulation 11 in Chap. II of the Regulations framed under Sections 16 (E) to 16 (H) of the Act specifies the particulars that are to be furnished while submitting the statement under sub-sec. (2) of S. 16 (F) of the Act. Regulation 12 then provides as follows : "The complete papers concerning any or all candidates applying for or considered for selection shall be furnished forthwith by the head of the institution if called for by the officer concerned." 8. It is obvious that this regulation contemplates that in a case where, in order to decide as to whether the selection made by the management should be approved, the District Inspector of Schools or the Regional Dy Director, Education, needs further information, papers containing that additional information would also be relevant papers, contemplated by Section 16(F) (2) of the Act, and the period of two weeks mentioned in the section would be reckoned from the date on which the papers containing the requisite information has been furnished. 9. In the instant case, the District Inspector of Schools, on 13th of Sept. 1974 asked for additional information in connection with the selection of the two petitioners and the papers containing the information sought for were supplied to him only on 7th October, 1974. The relevant papers contemplated by S. 16-F (2) were, accordingly, furnished to the District Inspector of Schools on 7th Oct., 1974, and he could make an order approving or disapproving the selection of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 up to 21st of Oct., 1974. The relevant papers contemplated by S. 16-F (2) were, accordingly, furnished to the District Inspector of Schools on 7th Oct., 1974, and he could make an order approving or disapproving the selection of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 up to 21st of Oct., 1974. As the District Inspector of Schools disapproved the selection of the two petitioners by his order dated 16-10-74, made well within fourteen days of 7th Oct., 74, the date on which all the relevant papers were furnished to him, it cannot he said that their selection was at any stage, deemed to have been approved under S. 16 (F) (2) of the Act. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners then argued that under Regulation 12 mentioned above, the District Inspector of Schools was not competent to extend the period mentioned in S. 16F (2) by asking for information that was not at all relevant for considering whether the selection of candidate should be approved or not. As in this case, the information called for by the District Inspector of Schools was not material and as he did not make any order disapproving the appointment of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 within two weeks of 4-9-76, when all relevant papers were forwarded to him, their appointments will be deemed to have been approved on 18-9-76, as provided in S. 16 F (2) of the Act and subsequent order disapproving their appointment made on 16-10-74 was without jurisdiction. We are unable to accept this submission. We find that amongst other matters, the District Inspector of Schools had on 13-9-1974 called for the originals of the proceedings of the selection committee and the applications made by all the candidates. It is obvious that he did so as he wanted to be certain that the information supplied to him by the institution in the tabular form was correct. Information sought for by the Inspector of Schools, with a view to check the correctness of the data on the basis of which he was to act cannot be said to be irrelevant material. In our opinion the District Inspector of Schools was, under Regulation 12 competent to call for those papers and as such the period of 14 days as mentioned in S. 16 (F) (2) of the Act was to be reckoned from 7-10-1974 when those papers were produced before him. 11. In our opinion the District Inspector of Schools was, under Regulation 12 competent to call for those papers and as such the period of 14 days as mentioned in S. 16 (F) (2) of the Act was to be reckoned from 7-10-1974 when those papers were produced before him. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners then contended that the two orders of the District Inspector of Schools and the Dy. Director, Education, disapproving the selection of the two petitioners deserve to be quashed as they were based on misconceptions and irrelevant material. 12. A copy of the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 16th Oct., 1974, disapproving the selection of the two petitioners has been filed as Annexure (E) to the petition. A perusal of the order shows that he disapproved the appointment of the two petitioners on the following grounds : "(1) The candidate selected for appointment as a History teacher was not qualified as he had not passed the High School Examination with compulsory Hindi. (2) His application had not been forwarded by the institution in which he was already working. This was in contravention of the provisions contained in Para. 144 of the U.P. Education Code. (3) The candidate selected for appointment as Sanskrit teacher was not qualified as he had not passed any examination in Sanskrit Literature and Grammar. (4) In selecting Sanskrit teacher, the selection committee did not follow the directions issued under the Intermediate Education Act. (5) While considering the application, the selection committee contravened the provisions of Regulation 9 (d) of Chap. II of the Regulations framed under Sections 16 (E) and 16 (F) of the Act. (6) Notices to the members of the selection committee, for selection of candidates, were, as required by as Regulation No. 4 of Chap. II of the Regulations framed under S. 16 of the Act, not issued by registered post." 13. The Deputy Director, Education, however, approved the order of the District Inspector of Schools only on the following three grounds:- "(1) The candidate for selection as a History teacher was not qualified as he had not passed the High School examination with compulsory Hindi, as required by R. 9 of Chap. III. The Deputy Director, Education, however, approved the order of the District Inspector of Schools only on the following three grounds:- "(1) The candidate for selection as a History teacher was not qualified as he had not passed the High School examination with compulsory Hindi, as required by R. 9 of Chap. III. (2) The candidate for selection as Sanskrit teacher was not eligible as he had neither passed the full Intermediate Examination with English as a subject nor had he passed the Shastri examination (new course) with English. Acharya Examination with Puranetihas did not appear to be useful for teaching Intermediate classes, and (3) Although candidates possessing minimum qualifications were available, their cases had not been considered by the selection committee." 14. It will thus appear that from out of various reasons given by the District Inspector of Schools, for not approving the selection of the two petitioners, the only reason that appealed to the Dy. Director of Education was that neither of the two candidates were eligible for appointment as History and Sanskrit teachers. He further appeared to be of opinion that the selection of the two petitioners was bad as other persons possessing minimum qualifications were available and their cases had not been considered by the selection committee. It necessarily follows that the Dy. Director, Education did not accept the remaining reasons given by the District Inspector of Schools for not approving the selection of the two petitioners, as valid. In view of the fact that certain reasons given by the District Inspector of Schools, for not approving the selection have been rejected by the Dy. Director, Education, and it has not been shown to us that rejection of those reasons is not correct, we would proceed to decide whether the two reasons given by the Dy. Director, Education for not approving the selection of the two petitioners are valid or not. 15. According to the Dy. Director, Education petitioner No. 2 was not qualified to be appointed as a History teacher inasmuch as he had not passed the High School Examination with compulsory Hindi as a subject. Section 16 E (1) of the Act lays down that the qualification for appointment as Principal, Headmaster and teachers of different subjects at different stages of the course shall be prescribed by regulation. According to Regulation 2 of Chap. Section 16 E (1) of the Act lays down that the qualification for appointment as Principal, Headmaster and teachers of different subjects at different stages of the course shall be prescribed by regulation. According to Regulation 2 of Chap. III of the Regulations, framed under S. 16-G of the Act, no person shall be appointed substantively as Principal, Headmaster or teacher against clear vacancy unless he possesses minimum qualification prescribed under S. 16-E. Regulation I in Chapter II of the regulation framed under Sections 16-E and 16-F lays down that the minimum qualification for appointment as Principal. Headmaster and teacher in recognised Higher Secondary School shall be that given in Appendix A. Item No. 17 of the Appendix provides that the minimum qualification for appointment as History teachers in Intermediate classes would be M. A. in History, preferably trained or M. A. in Ancient History of the Lucknow or the Banaras Hindu University, preferably trained or, B. A. (Honours) in History with three years course, preferably trained. This item nowhere provides that a candidate for appointment as a History teacher must also have passed High School Examination with Hindi as a compulsory subject. In this connection. our attention has been invited to Regulation 9 of Chap. III of the regulations framed under S. 16-G which provides that no teacher or Head of an Institution will be confirmed on his appointment until he has passed the High School Examination of the Board with compulsory Hindi as one of his subjects or an equivalent examination with Hindi (Regular or Elementary) of an examining body situated within a State, where Hindi is the Regional language, or any one of the other examinations specified therein. The proviso added to that regulation lays down that the Board may after considering the report of the Director, grant exemption for sufficient reasons in exceptional circumstances. A reading of the regulation shows that it applies to the stage when the question of confirmation of a teacher comes up for consideration. Rule laying down minimum qualification for selection as a teacher is contained in Regulation I of Chap. II of the Regulations framed under Sections 16E and 16F of the Act. A reading of the regulation shows that it applies to the stage when the question of confirmation of a teacher comes up for consideration. Rule laying down minimum qualification for selection as a teacher is contained in Regulation I of Chap. II of the Regulations framed under Sections 16E and 16F of the Act. In our opinion, the regulation clearly envisages that it will be open to a teacher possessing minimum qualifications, who has been selected for appointment as a teacher to pass the compulsory Hindi Examination of the Board, if he has not already done so, in the period intervening his selection and his confirmation as a teacher. Selection of petitioner No. 2, therefore, in our opinion, could not have been disapproved on the ground that he was not qualified for appointment as a History teacher inasmuch as he had not passed High School Examination with compulsory Hindi as a subject. Besides this, the petitioners have filed certain documents showing that petitioner No. 2 had already passed. the High School Examination of the Board with elementary Hindi as one of the subjects and subsequently in the year 1964 he further appeared and passed the High School Examination in Hindi under Chap. 12 Regulation 17, which authorises a candidate to appear in additional subjects. It was accordingly contended that petitioner No. 2 fulfilled the requisite qualifications even for confirmation under Regulation 9 of Chap. III. Be that as it may, at this stage we are not concerned whether the petitioner is entitled to be confirmed as a teacher. We are confident that if and when that question arises, the authorities will keep aforementioned certificates in their view while deciding whether petitioner No. 2 should be confirmed as a teacher or not and whether the Board would consider the desirability of exempting him from fulfilling the condition that he should have passed High School Examination with compulsory Hindi as one of the subjects. 16. Selection of petitioner No. 3 as a Sanskrit teacher has been disapproved on the ground that he had neither passed the Intermediate examination with English nor is he a Shastri in accordance with the new course with English as a subject and that the degree of Acharya with Puranetihas is not useful for teaching Intermediate classes. 16. Selection of petitioner No. 3 as a Sanskrit teacher has been disapproved on the ground that he had neither passed the Intermediate examination with English nor is he a Shastri in accordance with the new course with English as a subject and that the degree of Acharya with Puranetihas is not useful for teaching Intermediate classes. The qualification for appointment as a Sanskrit teacher for Inter mediate classes, applicable at the time of the selection, as laid down in item No. 3 of Appendix A of the Regulations, was, M. A. in Sankrit preferably trained or Acharya of the Banaras Hindu University or of the Lucknow University or the Varanasi Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi, or erstwhile Government Inter College, Varanasi, with full Intermediate, preferably trained. A note added thereto shows that persons possessing Acharya degree after passing Shastri of the Varanasi Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi, according to the new syllabus, with English will not be required to pass the full Intermediate Examination. It is thus obvious that except in the cases of Acharyas who have passed Shastri of the Varanasi Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya Varanasi, according to the new syllabus, with English, all other Acharyas have also to pass full Intermediate examination, before they can become qualified for appointment as a Sanksrit teacher. A list of certain examinations which have been treated as equivalent to Intermediate examination of the Board has been given in Cl. 1 Reg. 17 of Chap. 12 of the regulations framed under the Act. Those examinations are : "Uttar Madhyama Examination (with English) conducted by the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi (Formerly conducted by the Government Sanskrit College, Varanasi), old Khand Madhyama (full four years' course) or Sampurna Madhyama Examination and special examination in additional subject in each case with English as one of the subjects conducted by the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi (formerly conducted by the Government Sanskrit College, Varanasi)." 17. Petitioner No. 3 does not claim that he was M. A. in Sanskrit. He merely asserts that he is an Acharya but does not say that he has either passed the full Intermediate Examination or any other examination which has been recognised by the Board as equivalent thereto. The petitioner relied upon a Government order dated 12th Jan., 1973, which has been issued for the purposes of employment under the U.P. Government. He merely asserts that he is an Acharya but does not say that he has either passed the full Intermediate Examination or any other examination which has been recognised by the Board as equivalent thereto. The petitioner relied upon a Government order dated 12th Jan., 1973, which has been issued for the purposes of employment under the U.P. Government. That Government order, in our opinion, has no bearing on the question of qualification to be possessed by a .teacher for appointment as a Sanskrit teacher as provided in the regulations framed under the Act. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon a Government order dated 11-10-72 copy of which has been filed as annexure to the supplementary affidavit dated 20-10-1976 and contended that the State Government had exempted the Sanskrit teacher of the class to which petitioner No. 3 belonged, from minimum qualifications specified in the regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act. Accordingly, the Deputy Director was not justified in disapproving petitioner's appointment on the ground that he did not possess the minimum qualification. It appears that before disapproving the appointment of petitioner No. 3 the Deputy Director did not take this particular Govt. order into consideration. However, before deciding as to whether petitioner No. 3 is entitled to claim any benefit under the Government Order certain facts will have to be ascertained. These facts can more conveniently be ascertained by the Deputy Director from the school records and the records available in the office of the Inspector of Schools. As we propose to send the case back to the Dy. Director for reconsideration of the Matter it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the question as to whether the petitioner No. 3 is entitled to any relief on the basis of the Government Order. 19. So far as the last ground given by the Dy. Director of Education viz. that there were other persons fulfilling the minimum qualification whose cases had not been considered, is concerned, the ground appears to be vague. It does not mention the particulars of the candidates and in what manner they were qualified and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were not so qualified. While disapproving the selection of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 on this ground what the Dy. Director of Education seems to imply is that in his opinion neither of the two petitioners viz. It does not mention the particulars of the candidates and in what manner they were qualified and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were not so qualified. While disapproving the selection of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 on this ground what the Dy. Director of Education seems to imply is that in his opinion neither of the two petitioners viz. petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 possessed requisite qualification for appointment as teachers, they could not be preferred to qualified applicants who were available for selection. He did not mean that even if there was no impediment by way of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 not possessing the requisite qualifications prescribed by the regulation, their selection would still be considered to be improper. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds. The order of the Dy. Director of Education, dated 6th of Feb., 1975, upholding the order of the District Inspector of Schools, dated 16th of Oct., 1974, is quashed. The papers will now go back to the Dy. Director Education, who will decide the representations made by petitioner No. 1 afresh in the light of the observations made by us in this judgment at a very early date. In view of the partial success of the petition, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.