JUDGMENT K.N. Goyal, J. - There is a controversy between Sri T.S. Bajpai and Sri K.P. Misra who are both Assistant Teachers in National Intermediate College about the right to promotion from C.T. Grade to L.T. Grade in the vacancy caused by the retirement of Sri M.M. Agnihotri. The D.I.O.S. has approved the promotion of Sri K.P. Misra. Aggrieved thereby, Sri Bajpai first preferred a representation or appeal to the Deputy Director (Education). The Deputy Director (Education) gave notice of the hearing of the appeal to Sri Misra. Aggrieved thereby Sri Misra filed Writ Petition No. 729 of 1983 contending that the Deputy Director has no jurisdiction to entertain such appeal or representation. Sri Bajpai has conceded that the Deputy Director had no jurisdiction in the matter and has accordingly withdrawn the said representation and preferred a fresh representation to the Director of Education. This representation purports to have been made u/s 16E(10) of the Intermediate Education Act. The Director is said to have slept over the said representation. Accordingly Sri Bajpai preferred a Writ petition No. 3009 of 1983 praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Director to decide his representation. This Writ petition is contested by Sri K.N. Misra. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. It is common ground that no representation lay to the Deputy Director and as such Sri Bajpai had already withdrawn his earlier representation. Accordingly Writ Petition No. 729 of 1983 has become in fructuous and is liable to be dismissed as such. 4. We are then left with Writ Petition No. 3009 of 1983. It has been contended on behalf of Sri Misra, by his learned Counsel Sri A.P. Singh, that Section 16E(10) applies only to a case of direct recruitment and not to a case of promotion. As such, it is contended, no representation lay in the matter to the Director. 5. Section 16E is headed "Procedure for selection of teachers and head of institution. " Sub-section (1) says that subject to the provisions of this Act, the Head of Institution and teachers of an institution shall be appointed by the Committee of Management in the manner hereafter provided. Sub-section (2) goes on to say that every post of Head of Institution or teacher of an institution shall, except to the extent prescribed for being filled by promotion, be filled by direct recruitment. Sub-section (2) goes on to say that every post of Head of Institution or teacher of an institution shall, except to the extent prescribed for being filled by promotion, be filled by direct recruitment. The procedure for direct recruitment for the post of teacher has been mentioned partly in Sub-section (2) and thereafter in Sub-sections (3) to (9). These Sub-sections are followed by Sub-section (10) which reads as follows: Where the State Government in case of the appointment of Head of Institution, and the Director in the case of the appointment of teacher of an institution, is satisfied that any person has been appointed as Head of Institution or teacher, as the case may be, in contravention of the provisions of this Act, the State Government or, as the case may be, the Director may, after affording an opportunity of being heard to such person, cancel such appointment and has such consequential order as may be necessary." All this shows that Section 16E is not confined to appointments by direct recruitment. It deals with the appointments to the post of teachers both by direct recruitment and by promotion. The marginal heading and Sub-section (1) refer to all types of selections and Sub-section (2) also refers to selection by promotion as well as by direct recruitment. It is true that several Sub-sections thereafter are devoted to the procedure for direct recruitment, but that was so because of the elaborateness of the procedure provided. Sub-section (1) however does not speak of direct recruitment, but of all appointments. The expression ' appointment ' is comprehensive enough to include appointment by promotion and appointment by direct recruitment. We therefore, find no good ground in support of the contention that Sub-section (10) is confined to cases of direct recruitment. 6. Sri A.P. Singh has however contended that in regulations contained in Chapter 2 a procedure is laid down for promotion. After various regulations specifying the procedure Regulation 8 lays -down that if any teacher is aggrieved by any decision of the Committee of Management under the foregoing regulations he may make representation against such decision to the D.I.O.S. and the decision of the D.I.O.S. shall be given effect to by the Committee of Management. 7. After various regulations specifying the procedure Regulation 8 lays -down that if any teacher is aggrieved by any decision of the Committee of Management under the foregoing regulations he may make representation against such decision to the D.I.O.S. and the decision of the D.I.O.S. shall be given effect to by the Committee of Management. 7. It has been contended on the basis of this provision that a special procedure is laid down for dealing with the representations in cases of promotion and therefore the provisions of Sub-section (10) of Section 16E are excluded by implication. 8. This argument cannot be accepted for several reasons. Firstly, a regulation cannot override a provision of the Act of legislature under which it is made. There is, therefore, no question of any conflict between the two. Even if there be any conflict, the provisions of the Act would over-ride those of the regulations. Secondly, there is no conflict inasmuch as regulation 8 does not say that the decision of the Inspector shall be final, or that no representation would thereafter lie to the Director. Thus both, the regulation 8 and the said Sub-section (10), can stand together, particularly having regard to the fact that the Director is an officer superior in rank to the Inspector. 9. This view has been taken in unreported decision in Rajmani Tewari v. District Inspector of Schools, Writ Petition No. 1275 of 1979 by a Bench of this Court on 12.10.84. It was held that even in a case of promotion Sub-section (10) of Section 16E provide an alternative remedy of making representation and for that reason a writ petition should not, normally, be entertained. It is true that no reference is made therein to regulation 8, but the Bench did hold that Section 16E(10) applied to a case of promotion. 10. Sri A.P. Singh has, on the other hand, placed reliance on the Committee of Management, Subhadra Kumar Intermediate College v. Director of Education 1980 U.P.L.B.E.C. 353, (para8), in which a Division Bench made an observation that after the impugned promotion the D.I.O.S. had turned down the representation of the Management of the Institution and thereafter the Management had also not filed a Writ Petition, with the result that the order of the D.I.O.S. had become final. In that context it was also observed that "No appeal or representation could lie against that order and the only remedy that the Petitioner had was to file a writ petition to assail the order. "This is clearly, with due respect, in the nature of obiter, inasmuch as the attention of their Lordships was not invited to Sub-section (10) of Section 16E, nor was it contended that any representation, had been made, after the order of the D.I.O.S., with the Director under that Sub-section. Accordingly, the result, no doubt, was that the order of the D.I.O.S. had become final, as rightly held in the decision. The observation however " that no appeal or representation could lie against that order " cannot be treated as a binding precedent as the relevant provisions of Section 16E(10) were not brought to the notice of the Bench. Sri A.P. Singh has also placed reliance on Dr. Ramji Dwivedi v. State of U.P. 1983 EC 114 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court dealt with the validity of the directions of a State Government u/s 9(4) of the Act. In that context it was held that Section 16E(10) was not attracted to a case where the power of making appointment had stood withdrawn or suspended. This decision is of no assistance so far as the controversy before us is concerned. 12. It was further argued by Sri A.P. Singh that the representation made to the Director by Sri Bajpai was belated and also that Bajpai was not qualified for the post in question. All these are matters for consideration of the Director and it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on these point. 13. In the result the writ petition No. 729 of 1983 is dismissed as in fructuous and writ petition No. 3009 of 1983 is allowed to the extent that writ in the nature of mandamus shall issue to opposite party No. 1 Director of Secondary Education to decide the representation of the Petitioner contained in annexure-8 at an early date. 13. In the result the writ petition No. 729 of 1983 is dismissed as in fructuous and writ petition No. 3009 of 1983 is allowed to the extent that writ in the nature of mandamus shall issue to opposite party No. 1 Director of Secondary Education to decide the representation of the Petitioner contained in annexure-8 at an early date. As we are informed that the question of further promotion to the post of lecturer is likely to arise by the end of June we direct that both the parties shall appear before the Director on 27th May 1985 to take further orders from him so that the Director may decide the representation by the end of June, 1985. No order as to costs. 14. A copy of this order be issued to the parties' counsel on payment of necessary charges.