JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C.J. - There are two inter-connected writ petitions. The principal point which arise for consideration is whether Sri Nripati Yadav was qualified for appointment in the lecturer's grade on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. 2. It appears that, by an order dated. May 5, 1978. four posts of lecturers were created in Pramhansh Intermediate College, Azamgarh. Two of them were to be filled by promotion and two by direct recruitment. On January 21, 1980, this order was modified and it was directed that one post will be filled by promotion and the rest three by direct recruitment. The petitioner who was an existing teacher in the L.T. Grade in this college applied for being considered for promotion to the post of lecturer. The Managing committee held that he was not qualified. Mr. Yadav then approached the Additional Director of Education who by an order passed on August 29, 1978. directed the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh to stay the aforesaid selection. Aggrieved the committee of management filed writ petition no. 7280 of 1980 complaining that the Addl. Director had no business to interfere in the process of selection. Sri Nripati Yadav filed writ petition no. 7563 of 1980 against the move of the managing committee to hold the elections on September 3, 1980. 3. The dispute between the committee of management and Nripati Yadav is whether Sri Yadav fulfils the requisite qualifications for being considered for the lecturer's grace. Regulation 6 in Chapter II of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act is relevant and material. This regulation provides : - "6. (1) Where any vacancy in the lecturer's grade or in the L.T. grade as determined under regulation 5, is to be filled Of promotion, all teachers working in the L.T. or the C.T, grade, as the case may be, having a minimum five years continuous substantive services to their credit on the date of occurrence of the vacancy shall be considered for promotion by the Committee of Management without their having to apply for the the same provided they possess the prescribed minimum qualifications for teaching the subject in which the teacher in the lecturer's grade or in the L.T. Grade is required. Note - For purposes of this clause, service rendered by a teacher in the L. T. or the C.T. grade in any other recognised institution shall court for eligibility, unless interrupted by removal, dismissal or reduction to a lower post. (2) "..... ..... ..... The condition precedent is possession of minimum of five years continuous substantive service. Such five years service should have been completed on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. The petitioner was appointed in this very institution in the C.T. grade on August 7, 1971 and, on September 6, 1974, he was appointed in the L. T. grade. If the service in the L. T. grade alone was to be considered his service in that grade commenced from September 6, 1974 and was not five years on May 5, 1973, the date when the posts were created. 4. Learned counsel for Sri Yadav submitted that the teaching date for computing the five years service should be January 21, 1980. On that date, the order dated May 5, 1978 was modified. The notification was not in the number of vacancies created by the order of May, 1978, namely, four, but in the mode of their filling up. The 1978 order prescribed that two posts will be filled by promotion and two by direct recruitment. The order of January 21, 1980 cannot be characterised as creating the posts in this college. The manner of filling them as laid down on January 21, 1980 related to the four posts that had already been created by the order of May 5, 1978. 5. Under Regulation 6 (1), the testing date is the date of occurrence of the vacancy. Here certain posts were created for the first time. Hence the date of. creation of the posts will be the date of occurrence of vacancy in those posts. Hence the date of occurrence of vacancy in the present case was May, 5, 1978. As seen, on that day, Sri Yadav had not completed five years service in the L.T. grade learned counsel then made two alternative submissions. In the first place, he submitted that the date of occurrence of vacancy is the date of appointment, The argument has to be stated to be rejected. The date of appointment is the date of filling of vacancy and not the date of its occurrence. 6. In the first place, he submitted that the date of occurrence of vacancy is the date of appointment, The argument has to be stated to be rejected. The date of appointment is the date of filling of vacancy and not the date of its occurrence. 6. In the second place, it was submitted that the petitioner had been appointed in . the C. T. grade on August 7, 1971 and in continuation he was appointed the L.T. grade in this very institution on September 6, 1974. His experience in the C.T. grad was also liable to be taken into consideration while computing five years service. The argument is based on a misreading of Regulation 6J(1). In that regulation, the relevant clause is "all teachers working in the L. T. or C. T. grades, as the case may be." This requirement is for filling the vacancy by promotion in the L. T. grade or the lecturer's grade. It is well known that C. T. grade is lower than L. T. grade and the lecturers grade. The underlying idea was that for the lecturer's grade the field of eligibility was extended to L. T grade teachers and for filling U.P.L.T, grade the field of eligibility was C. T. grade teachers. For filling the lecturer's grade post only L. T. grade teachers must be those who have minimum of five years continuous substantive service. The phrase "all teachers working in L.T. or C.T. grade, as the case may be, having a minimum of five years continuous substantive service to their credit" clearly means that for the post of lecturer's grade the L.T. grade teachers alone would be eligible and they should have minimum of five years service as such, namely, in the L. T. grade. Service in the C. T. grade was not relevant for the purpose of computing the minimum five years service for promotion to the lecturer's grade. 7. In this situation, learned counsel invited our attention to Annexure 5 filed with the counter affidavit in his writ petition. This is an application made by Sri Yadav for appointment in the C.T. grade in this institution. In paragraph he stated that he bad two years teaching experience from 1966 to 1968 in Maulana Azad School as an untrained graduate. Learned counsel states that the correct translation was untrained L. T. grade. Such a phrase is understandable. This is an application made by Sri Yadav for appointment in the C.T. grade in this institution. In paragraph he stated that he bad two years teaching experience from 1966 to 1968 in Maulana Azad School as an untrained graduate. Learned counsel states that the correct translation was untrained L. T. grade. Such a phrase is understandable. The statements in the application were admissions in his own favour. They do not advance his case In the next place, it was quite clear that he did not have the experience in the L. T. grade there. It does not stand to reason that a person who had two years L. T. grade experience would apply in the C. T. grade. This circumstance also is unhelpful to Mr. Yadav. 8. Learned counsel invjted our attention to the note appended to Regulation 6 in which it has been stated that for purposes of this clauses service rendered by a teacher in the L.T. or C.T. grade in any recognised institution will confer eligibility. Here the experience concerned in the L.T. or. C.T. grade has to be construed in the same manner as in the principal Regulation 6 (1), namely, for vacancy in the lecturer's grade service rendered in the L T. grade and for vacancy in the L. T. grade experience in the C. T. grade was relevant, it being irrelevant that experience was gained in that very institution or in any other recognised institution. The experience gained by the petitioner in the C. T. grade between 1971 to 1974 was hence not helpful to him. 9. In the result, the position is that Sri Yadav did not possess five years substantive service in the L. T. grade on May 5, 1978, the date of occurrence of the vacancy. He was hence rightly held by the managing committee to be not eligible for selection to the lecturer's grade. In this view, it is not necessary to go into the other points whether the Additional Director of Education had any jurisdiction to interpose in the matter of selection because, as discussed above, on the merits, his view that Mr. Yadav was also qualified and should be considered for selection, - was wrong. In this view, it is not necessary to go into the other points whether the Additional Director of Education had any jurisdiction to interpose in the matter of selection because, as discussed above, on the merits, his view that Mr. Yadav was also qualified and should be considered for selection, - was wrong. We also do not propose to go into the question whether the selections held were valid, because we understand that the selections have been held and the matter is before the District Inspector of Schools for Approval. If Mr. Yadav has any complaint in that respect he can well approach the Inspector and have his say there. 10. In the result, the writ petition no. 7563 of 1980 is dismissed with costs. Writ petition no 7280 of 1980 is allowed. The order dated "August 29, 1980 passed by the Additional Director of Education is set aside. The parties may, however, bear their own costs.