JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - A selection committee was appointed for selecting a suitable person to be appointed as Principal of Govardhan Uchchatar, Madhya-mik Vidyala Muftiganj, Jaunpur This Committee on 6th January 1979 recommended three names for appointment. The name of the petitioner was placed at serial no. 1 while the name of respondent no. 4 was placed at serial no. 3. The person whose name was placed at serial no. 2 appears to have subsequently refused to accept appointment and, as such, we are not concerned with his case. The Committee of Management did not agree with the report of the Selection Committee by its resolution dated 7th October, 1979 The matter was thereafter referred to the Deputy Director of Education, V Region, Varanasi, respondent no. 1, as contemplated by Section 16 E (8) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Deputy Director of Education has by his order dated 31st October, 1979 agreed with the view taken by the Committee of Management. He has held that the Committee of Management was right in taking the stand that the petitioner did cot possess the minimum qualification of having four years teaching experience it is this order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 31st October, 1979 which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. 2. It was urged by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order had not been passed on any reference under Section 16-E (8) but had been passed in proceedings for the grant of approval. We are not inclined to accept this argument. On a plain reading of the impugned order, which quotes the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 7th October, 1979, whereby it disagreed with the recommendation of the Selection Committee it is apparent that the impugned order was passed in proceedings under Section 16 E (8) of the Act. 3. It was then urged that approval of appointment by the Deputy Director of Education was still necessary in view of Regulation 18 of the Regulation framed under the Act. We find no substance in this submission either. Regulation 18 contemplates approval of the Deputy Director of Education only in regard to the appointments in institutions governed by Section 16-FF, namely, minority institutions. We find no substance in this submission either. Regulation 18 contemplates approval of the Deputy Director of Education only in regard to the appointments in institutions governed by Section 16-FF, namely, minority institutions. Admittedly, the College where the petitioner wanted himself to be appointed was not a minority institutions covered by Section 16-FF. 4. It was further urged that the finding of the Deputy Director of Education that the petitioner did not have four years teaching experience was erroneous inasmuch as the petitioner had been appointed as a teacher on 8th July, 1974 and on the relevant date he had completed 4 years teaching experience. The petitioner had in support of his four years teaching experience placed reliance on a certificate issued by the Principal of the College where he claims to have had four years teaching experience. The Deputy Director of Education has recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner was appointed in that College only on 27th November, 1974 and his assertion that he had been appointed on 8th July, 1974 on the basis of the certificate relied upon by him was not acceptable. This, in our opinion, is a finding of fact based on appraisal of the evidence and cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. Lastly, it was urged that the petitioner was not given any opportunity by the Deputy Director of Education before passing the impugned order. This submission is on the face of it contrary to the stand taken by the petitioner in paragraph 11 of the writ petition were he has stated that the Deputy Director of Education, V Region, Varanasi had asked the petitioner to submit the certificates regarding the teaching experience and the petitioner submitted the certificates issued by the Principal of Krishak Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Thana Ganddi, Jaunpur. It is, therefore, apparent that the Deputy Director of Education did associate the petitioner with the proceedings before him. 6. In the result, we find no merit in the writ petition., It is accordingly dismissed.