JUDGMENT A.S. Srivastava, J. - The petitioner, Phul Chand Tiwari, has in this petition prayed for the issue of a writ of Certiorari quashing of (i) order dated 5.9.1980 of the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh (Annexure VI) and (ii) order dated 20.9.1980 of the Committee of Management of Maharajganj Higher Secondary School., Azamgarh (Annexure VII). 2. The petitioner, a teacher in C.T. grade in Maharajganj Higher Secondary School, Azamgarh and a trained graduate was promoted as a teacher in the L.T. grade, against a vacancy caused by the retirement' of a Sanskrit teacher in that grade, viz. C.B. Tripathi, in June 1980. This promotion was made by a resolution dated 17. 8. 1980, of the Committee of Management. The Manager forwarded a copy of this resolution to the District Inspector of Schools for his concurrence. By a letter dated 591980 (Annexure VI), the District Inspector of Schools disapproved this promotion of the petitioner and further directed the Manager to submit proposals for the promotion of Bechan Ram, as he is the seniormost teacher in the C.T. grade. Accordingly, the manager cancelled the petitioner's promotion by his order dated 2091980 (Annexure VII). It is these two orders which are sought to be quashed. 3. Evidently, the Manager passed the order dated 2091980 in pursuance of the direction of the District Inspector of Schools, contained in his letter dated 591980. In the letter the District Inspector of Schools has given two reasons for not approving the promotion of the petitioner and for directing the promotion of Bechan Ram. They are: (i) the petitioner has been chosen by ignoring the seniority of Bechan Ram in the C. T. grade, and (ii) several teachers in L. T. grade are already available in the school for teaching Sanskrit. After disapproving promotion of the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools directed that proposal for promotion of Bechan Ram, Who is senior to the petitioner should be submitted by the Manager. 4. After considering the matter in the Sight of arguments made before us, we are of the opinion 'that the petitioner was rightly promoted, 'as a Sanskrit teacher in the L.T. grade in the vacancy of C.B.P. Tripathi and the District Inspector of Schools was not justified in disapproving the same and directing the promotion of Bechan Ram in his place. After considering the matter in the Sight of arguments made before us, we are of the opinion 'that the petitioner was rightly promoted, 'as a Sanskrit teacher in the L.T. grade in the vacancy of C.B.P. Tripathi and the District Inspector of Schools was not justified in disapproving the same and directing the promotion of Bechan Ram in his place. No doubt Bechan Ram is just above the petitioner in the seniority list of the teachers in the C.T. grade but he is not qualified for this promotion as a Sanskrit teacher in the L.T. grade as he does not possess the minimum requisite qualification. Regulation 6 (1) of Chapter II of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act provides that where a vacancy in the L. T. grade is to be filled by promotion, all the teachers of C.T. grade are to be considered for promotion, provided they possess the 'prescribed minimum qualifications for teaching the subject in which the teacher in the L.T. grade is required. Regulation 1 of Chapter II provides that the minimum qualifications for appointment of a teacher, both by recruitment or otherwise (i.e. by promotion) shall be as given in appendix 'A'. Item No. 4 of Part V of Appendix A prescribes hat the minimum qualification for the appointment of a Sanskrit teacher in L.T. grade is that he must possess B. A, degree with Hindi and Sanskrit. Bechan Ram does not possess such a degree with Sanskrit, whereas the petitioner possesses such a degree. Therefore, Bechan Ram is not eligible for appointment as a teacher of Sanskrit in the L.T. grade. Therefore, the Committee of Management had rightly resolved to promote the petitioner as teacher of Sanskrit in L.T. grade in preference to Bechan Ram. The decision of the District Inspector of Schools to the contrary was, therefore, not justified. 5. The other ground mentioned in the Setter dated 591980 of the District Inspector of Schools that several other teachers of Sanskrit in L.T. grade are available does not also support his decision. Firstly, he has not mentioned the name of any such teacher in his letter. Secondly, the filling of vacancy of Sanskrit, teacher caused by the retirement of teacher in Sanskrit, makes such an observation of the District Inspector of Schools irrelevant. Firstly, he has not mentioned the name of any such teacher in his letter. Secondly, the filling of vacancy of Sanskrit, teacher caused by the retirement of teacher in Sanskrit, makes such an observation of the District Inspector of Schools irrelevant. Thirdly, the direction of the District Inspector of Schools to the Manager to submit proposal for the promotion of Bechan Ram in this vacancy indicates that inspite of availability of Sanskrit teacher in L.T. grade, this vacancy was to be filled up by promotion. The District Inspector of Schools only wanted Bechan Ram to be promoted instead of thepetitioner which, as seen above, was not justified. The direction of the District Inspector of Schools as contained in his letter dated 591980 (Anaexure VI) and the consequential order dated 20.9.1980 of the Manager Annexure VII), therefore, deserve to be quashed, 6. The petition is allowed and the order of the District Inspector of Schools contained in his letter dated 591980 and the consequential order of the Manager dated 2091980 (Annexure VII) are hereby quashed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. (Petition allowed)