JUDGMENT Yashoda Nandan, J. - This petition was dismissed by us summarily on the 4th February, 1980, when we directed that our reasons in support of the order shall be given by us subsequently. We are proceeding to do so. 2. The petitioner claims to have been employed as an Assistant teacher in the TTC grade at the Sri Bhagwan Das Inter College, district Etawah since July, 1962. In the year 1971 he obtained a Masters Degree in Sociology from the University of Kanpur as also a Bachelors Degree in Education in 1974 from the same University. In the year 1973, according to the petitioner, he was promoted to the CT grade as an Assistant Teacher. For a short while in the academic year 1974-75, the petitioner claims, he was promoted to the L.T. grade in a leave vacancy. The Board of High School and Intermediate Education accorded recognition to the College concerned to teach Sociology as a subject in the academic session 1966-67. No appointment to the lecturer's grade to teach Sociology was made till the year 1979 but according to the petitioner the Committee of Management asked him to look after the teaching of Sociology as a subject in the Intermediate classes and he continued to do so, though he was paid only the salary of a teacher in the C.T. grade. Some time in 1975, according to the petitioner, he was promoted on a permanent basis in the L.T. grade. On repeated demands being made by the petitioner for his substantive promotion to the lectures grade since he had been teaching the subject of sociology to Intermediate classes, the Committee of Management passed a resolution on the 20th June, 1979 deciding to promote him to the lecturers grade for the subject of Sociology. By the same resolution, the Committee of Management required the Manager to take steps to regularise his promotion. It is alleged that the Management of the College submitted all relevant papers to the District Inspector of Schools seeding his approval to the promotion of the petitioner to the lecturer's grade as required by Chapter II, Regulation 6 (5) of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The above-mentioned papers, it is stated, were received by respondent no. 1, the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah, on the 3rd August, 1979. The above-mentioned papers, it is stated, were received by respondent no. 1, the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah, on the 3rd August, 1979. By means of a communication dated 18th August, 1979, addressed to the Manager/Principal the D strict Inspector of Schools required the Management to furnish him the seniority list of the teachers of the College as also information regarding the percentage of posts in the College already filled in by promotion. It is alleged that the requirements of the letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 18th August, 1979 were complied with by the Management and requisite in formations were furnished to him on the 27th August, 1979. On the 17th October, 1979, the District Inspector of Schools through a fitter addressed to the Manager of the College informed him that since the petitioner had not served in the L.T grade in a substantive capacity for a period of five years, the proposal for promoting him to the lecturers grade could net approved By means of this petition, the petitioner prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of respondent no. 1 dated 17th October, 1979 as also tor such other writ, order or direction which this Court might think fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3. When the petition came up for admission, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time when the Committee of Management of the College passed the resolution for promotion 'of.the petitioner to the lecturers grade he possessed the minimum qualification as required by Section 16E (3) of the Act read with Regulation 1 and Appendix A of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act. It was urged that though Regulation 6 of Chapter II imposes a duty on Committee of Management to consider for promotion of such teachers as had put in a minimum of five years continuous substantive service in the L.T. grade for promotion to the lecturer s grade, since the petitioner possessed the minimum qualifications as required by the Act and the Regulations, he was not debarred from being considered for promotion on the basis of an application made. It was urged that the reasons given by the District Inspector or Schools for declining to approve the promotion of the petitioner to the lecturers grade were patently erroneous aDd the order dated 17th October, 1979 was consequently liable to be quashed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we found no merits in the contention raised and consequently, as already stated, dismissed the 5. A brief survey of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder reveals that the petitioners contention is based on a misapprehension of the true legal position. Section 16-E (1) of the Act provides that the Head of Institution and teachers of an institution shall be appointed by the Committee of Management in the manner hereinafter provided, subject to the provisions of this Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 16-E is to the effect that- "Every post of Head of Institution or teacher of an institution shall except to the event prescribed for being filled by promotion, be filled by direct recruitment after intimation of the vacancy of the Inspector and advertisement of the vacancy containing such particulars as may be prescribed, in at least two newspapers having adequate circulation in the State". Sub section (3) thereof, on which the petitioner placed considerable reliance, is in the following terms:- "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". Sub-section (4) requires that "Every application for appointment as Head of Institution or teacher of an institution in pursuance of an advertisement published under sub-section (2) shall be made to the Inspector and shall be accompanied by such fee which shall be paid in such manner as may be prescribed". Sub-section (5) onwards lay down the manner in which the applications made for posts of Head of Institution or teachers are to be dealt with. Section 16-F of the Act prescribes the constitution of the Selection Committee for making selections for appointments of Heads of Institutions and teachers thereof. Sub-section (5) onwards lay down the manner in which the applications made for posts of Head of Institution or teachers are to be dealt with. Section 16-F of the Act prescribes the constitution of the Selection Committee for making selections for appointments of Heads of Institutions and teachers thereof. The Selection Committee contemplated by Section 16-F is required, as is apparent from a reading of the provisions of Sections 16-E and 16-F only to deal with applications made in pursuance of advertisements envisaged by sub-section (2) of Section 16-E and is not concerned with promotion of such teachers as are already on the staff of a college. Section 16-G (2) (a) of the Act, to the extent relevant for our purposes, runs as follows "Without prejudice to the generality of the powers on referred by subsection (1), Regulations may provide for - (a) the period of probation, the conditions of confirmation and the procedure and conditions for promotion and punishment including suspension............and termination of service with . notice............." (Emphasis supplied). It will be seen that while sub-section (3) of Section 16-E uses the words "minimum qualifications". Section 16-G (2) (a) requires that "the procedure and conditions for promotion" shall be provided for by Regulations. Regulation 1 of Chapter II, to which a reference has already been made, requires that "the minimum qualifications for appointment as Head of Institution and Teachers in any recognised institution, whether by direct recruitment or otherwise, shall be as given it Appendix A". It is thus clear that teachers employed either by direct recruitment or by promotion must of necessity possess the minimum qualifications prescribed in Appendix A unless exemption has been granted by the Board in exercise of powers under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 16E of the Act. Regulation 6 of Chapter II is in the following terms : - "6. Regulation 6 of Chapter II is in the following terms : - "6. (1) Where any vacancy in the lecturers grade or in the L.T. grade as determined under Regulation 5, is to be filled by promotion, all teachers working in the L. T. or the C.T. grade, as the case may be, having a minimum of five years continuous substantive service 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 same provided they possess the prescribed minimum qualifications for teaching the subject in which the teacher in the lecturers 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 count for eligibility, unless interrupted by removal, dismissal or reduction to a lower post. (2) Selection for promotion to the next higher grade shall be made on the basis of service standing, achievements in service, academic qualifications and integrity. (3) Subject to clause (2) where more than one teacher in the L. T. grade are eligible for promotion to the post of lecturer in any subject preference shall be given to the teacher who is the senior-most amongst them in service in that grade. (4) (a) The claim of any teacher who is eligible for promotion shall not be ignored merely because he has proceeded on long leave or is officiating or working temporarily on a post in the higher grade. (b) ..............................", Clause (5) of Regulation 6 requires a Committee of Management in case it decides to promote a particular teacher to send its proposal to the District Inspector of Schools within a week with a copy of the resolution and statement showing the particulars specified therein. Clause (6) of Regulation 6 provides that - "(6) Within three weeks from the date of receipt of the proposal under clause (5) the Inspector shall communicate his decision thereon to the Manager failing which the Inspector shall be deemed to have given his concurrence to the resolution passed by the Committee of Management". 6. Clause (6) of Regulation 6 provides that - "(6) Within three weeks from the date of receipt of the proposal under clause (5) the Inspector shall communicate his decision thereon to the Manager failing which the Inspector shall be deemed to have given his concurrence to the resolution passed by the Committee of Management". 6. A secrutiny of the above mentioned provisions clearly indicates that the scheme of the Act and the Regulations framed under the Act is that appointments can be only either by direct recruitment or by promotion. In the event of appointments being made by direct recruitment advertisements have to be made and applications entertained and dealt with in the manner provided by Section 16-E ana Section 16-F of the Act. Section 16-E (2) of the Act, which has been quoted above, makes it abundantly Clear that advertisements have to be made and applications invited only when appointments have to be made by direct recruitment. An exception exists in Case of appointments made by promotion and this is clear from the the Words used in Section 16-B (2) of the Act itself. Regulation 6(1) as well as other clauses of that Regulation reveal that the Act and the. Regulations draw a clear distinction between the "minimum qualifications and eligibility for promotion "or" conditions for promotion. This is made clear by a comparison of the words used in Sections 16-E (2) and 16-G (2)(a). The eligibility for promotion to a post has been prescribed by Regulation 6(1). When Regulation 6(1) provides that the Committee of Management shall consider the cases of such teachers as are eligible for promotion, it by necessary implication excludes consideration of those who are not eligible for promotion since they have not put in the minimum number of years of service. This has been so provided by the Act and the Regulations, in our opinion advisedly because while in the case of direct recruitment's the candidates have to face competition from outsiders and merit is the sole criterion. In the case of promotees the competition is confined to teachers already existing on the staff of a recognised institution. This has been so provided by the Act and the Regulations, in our opinion advisedly because while in the case of direct recruitment's the candidates have to face competition from outsiders and merit is the sole criterion. In the case of promotees the competition is confined to teachers already existing on the staff of a recognised institution. A minimum teaching experience consequently has been made as a prerequisite for consideration for purposes of promotion It has not been disputed that on the date vacancy arose in the lecturers grade for the subject of Sociology, the petitioner was ineligible for being considered for promotion since he had not put five years continuous substantive service in the L. T. grade. Respondent no 1 has given sound reasons for declining to accord approval to the promotion of the petitioner to the post of lecturer. 7. There is no clear averment contained in the petition that the requirements of Regulation 6 (5) were complied with by the Committee of Management when it sought approval to the petitioner's promotion to the post of lecturer. In fact the letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 18th August, 1979, of which a copy has been filed as an annexure to the petition, discloses that while sending the proposal of the Committee of Management to the District Inspector of Schools for promoting the petitioner to the lecturers grade, the relevant information was not sent to the District Inspector of Schools. Under the circumstances clause (6) of Regulation 6 cannot be pressed in aid by the petitioner in support of his claim. In any event since obviously the petitioner was not eligible for promotion to the post of a lecturer, no interference with the orders of the District Inspector of Schools is called for in exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. Since the petition has already been dismissed, no further orders are called for.