JUDGMENT Hari Swarup and K.S. Verma, JJ. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge who has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. The petitioner was a candidate for selection and appointment in the Mahesh Vidya Nike-tan Inter-College, Unchahar, Rae Berer for the post of Lecturer in History. An advertisement was given and the petitioner as well as respondent No. 1 appeared before the Selection Committee along with some others. The Selection Committee placed the name of respondent No, 1 at Serial No. 1 and of the petitioner at Serial No. 2. The respondent No. 1 was accordingly sought to be appointed and approval was sought from the District Inspector of Schools for the appointment. On Jan. 29, 1974, the District Inspector of Schools vide order mentioned in Annexure 2 to the writ petition granted approval for the appointment of respondent No. 1 on probation. It is this order approving the appointment of respondent No. 1 that was challenged by way of a writ petition in this Court. 2. The petitioner contended that respondent No. 1 did not hold the minimum qualification necessary for being appointed as a teacher of History in the Intermediate College. Section 16-E (3) of the Intermediate Education Act provides: "No person shall be appointed as Head of Institution or teacher in an institution unless he possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed by the regulations: Provided that a person who does not possess such qualification may also be appointed if he has been granted exemption by the Board having regard to his education, experience and other attainments." It is nobody's case that the proviso is attracted in the present case. 3. Qualifications have been prescribed in the Regulations framed under the Act. Item 17 in Appendix-A to the Regulations is relevant for the present purposes, the relevant portion of which is as follows: "17. History Teachers for Intermediate (Classes XI & XII) (1) M.A. in History, preferably trained. (2) M.A. in Ancient Indian History of the Lucknow or Banaras Hindu University, Preferably trained. The petitioner claims to have passed M. A. examination in History. The respondent No. 1 was M. A. in Ancient Indian History of the Kanpur University. According to the petitioner respondent No. 1 did not hold the necessary minimum qualification for selection and his selection was illegal. The petitioner claims to have passed M. A. examination in History. The respondent No. 1 was M. A. in Ancient Indian History of the Kanpur University. According to the petitioner respondent No. 1 did not hold the necessary minimum qualification for selection and his selection was illegal. The learned single Judge who heard the writ petition did not agree with the contention and held that the respondent No. 1 did hold the minimum qualification. According to the learned single Judge the qualifications given at Serial No. 17 in Appendix-A did not exclude "M. A. in Ancient Indian History of Kanpur University. M. A. in Ancient Indian History of the Kanpur University would be for all purposes recognised as M. A. in History." This view of the learned single Judge has been challenged in appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant. He has not addressed us on the other points raised before the learned single Judge which had not been accepted. To us the contention raised by the learned counsel appears to have merit. The Regulation makes a distinction between an M. A. in History and an M. A. in Ancient Indian History. It recognises that a person may hold M. A. degree in History or M. A, degree in Ancient Indian History. A degree in Ancient Indian History cannot therefore be deemed included within the meaning of the Regulation in a degree of M. A. in History. If it were to be included then the alternative condition No. 2 will be redundant. The Regulation would have said only M. A. in History. Nothing in any, Law is deemed to be redunant unless it is absolutely necessary. In the present case we do not find any such circumstance which may make us hold that qualification No. 2 was redundantly given. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 urged that the course in Ancient Indian History which was prescribed in the Lucknow and Banaras Hindu Universities was equivalent to the course prescribed for a degree of M. A. in Ancient Indian History of the Kanpur University, and hence a degree of M. A. in Ancient Indian History of Kanpur University should be deemed to be equivalent minimum qualification. Here again, we are unable to accept the contention because qualification No. 2 given in item No. 17 quoted above recognises a degree of M. A. in Ancient Indian History only of the Lucknow or Banaras Hindu University and not of any other University. If we accept the contention it will mean addition in this clause of the words "and of any other University examining students in equivalent courses." Such addition is not permissible for the Courts to make. It was for the authority prescribing the minimum qualification to determine as to the degree of which University is to be taken as sufficient qualification for appointment of History teachers for Inter-mediate classes. 5. Learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 contended that M. A. in History will include also M. A. in Ancient Indain History of the Kanpur University, He wants to bring the case within the first qualification. Calendar of the Kanpur University shows that the Kanpur University takes examinations for awarding M. A. degree in various subjects, M. A. in History is a different subject than the M. A. in Ancient Indian History and Culture. The contention that M. A. in History is a generic degree and it includes all degrees in different categories of History, cannot therefore be accepted. When a University runs different courses for different specified subjects and awards degrees in those subjects, then the degree in one subject cannot be deemed to be a degree obtainable in another. History and Ancient Indian History and Culture have been treated by the Kanpur University itself as two separate independent subjects, The degree of M. A. in Ancient Indian History and Culture cannot therefore be deemed to be a degree in M, A. in History. 6. The respondent No. 1 accordingly did not possess the necessary minimum qualification for being selected and appointed as a teacher of History. The District Inspector of Schools thus while according approval acts in violation of S. 16-E (3) of the Intermediate Education Act. The order therefore is liable to be quashed. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and direct that a writ in the nature of certiorari issue to quash the order of the District Inspector of Schools filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Costs on parties.