JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - Harish Chandra Misra, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur dated 22-8-1980, By this order the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, accorded approval or sanction to the appointment of Srinath Dubey, respondent no. 3 as Lecturer in Sanskrit in Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Machhalishhar, District Jaunpur. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the date on which the vacancy occurred the said respondent no. 3 was not qualified and, as such his name could not be sent by the management for appointment as against the said vacancy. 2. The respondent no. 3 has filed a counter affidavit and admitted that on the date of occurrence of the vacancy he was not eligible or qualified but he was however, supported the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, impugned by means of this writ petition on the ground that he had since acquired the requisite qualification, he was qualified on the date when the order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur. 3. The question, thus, arises for decision is whether respondent no. 3 on the admitted position that he did not possess the requisite qualification on the date when the vacancy occurred, could be appointed as Lecturer. In that connection the point to be considered would be heater subsequent acquisition of the qualification fulfilled the lacunae or defect which the respondent no. 3 had on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. 4. This controversy was considered by a Division Bench of this court, reported in Committee of Management, Sri Paramn Hans Intermediate College, Hanumannagar, Azamgarh v. Additional Director of Education, U.P. Allahabad, 1981 UPLBEC page 50 In that case this court held. "The condition precedent is possession of minimum of five years' continuous substantive service. Such the years' service should have been completed on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. Therefore, the testing date under Regulation 6 (1) is the date of occurrence of vacancy. When certain posts are created, the date of creation of vacancy will be the date of occurrence of vacancy. In the instant case certain post were created on May 5, 1978, hence such date will be the date of occurrence of vacancy. On that date the petitioner had not completed five years service in the L.T. Grade. When certain posts are created, the date of creation of vacancy will be the date of occurrence of vacancy. In the instant case certain post were created on May 5, 1978, hence such date will be the date of occurrence of vacancy. On that date the petitioner had not completed five years service in the L.T. Grade. The date of appointment is the date of filling up of vacancy and not the date of occurrence. The subsequent date on which the mode of filling up of such vacancy modified, cannot be characterised as the date creating the posts." 5. It cannot be said that the requirement of five years experience is needed with reference to occurring of the vacancy whereas the minimum qualification is to be with reference to any other date. Both the qualifications have to be possessed by a person on the date on which the vacancy occurred. The distinction between Regulations 6 and 10 is obvious. In the one case it is by promotion and in the other by direct recruitment. In the case of promotion, the intention appears to be that a person applying must have the qualifications required on the date of occurring of the vacancy, otherwise he cannot be considered for the same. The insistence is with reference to the date of occurring of the vacancy. 6. Regulation 6 (1) of Chapter IT of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, deals with the appointment of a teacher in the Lecturer's grade or in L.T. grade on a vacancy occurring. This Regulation is meant for being applied to the case of promotion, for which two qualifications are required. One of them is that a teacher must have minimum five years' continuos substantive service to his credit on the date of occurrence of the vacancy and the second is the minimum qualification for teaching the subject in the Lecturer's grade or in L.T. Grade. Admittedly, the respondent no. 3 did not possess the minimum qualification for teaching the subject in which he was promoted on the date of occurring of the vacancy. 7. Sri R.N. Upadhyaya, counsel for the said respondent Submitted that the requirement of minimum qualification for teaching is not to be decided with reference to the date of occurring of the vacancy but with reference to the date on which the appointment is made. Counsel urged that the respondent no. 7. Sri R.N. Upadhyaya, counsel for the said respondent Submitted that the requirement of minimum qualification for teaching is not to be decided with reference to the date of occurring of the vacancy but with reference to the date on which the appointment is made. Counsel urged that the respondent no. 3 had acquired the minimum qualification on the date of passing of the order. The approval given by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur to his appointment could not be termed as illegal or invalid. 8. For his submission the counsel placed reliance on two decisions, one of them is reported in Harihar Singh Deputy Director of Education v. Region Varansi, 1984 UPLBEC page 299 and the other is Smt. Shanti Devi Verma v. Deputy Director of Education, 1982 UPLBEC page 365 Both the decisions, in our view, are distinguishable in as much as the controversy that cropped up for decision in those oases, was beating to Regulation 10 of Chapter II. Regulation 10 of Chapter - II lays down the procedure for filling up the vacancy by direct recruitment. In connection with Regulation 10 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sapru in the case of Harihar Singh, held that if any person who has applied for being appointed, possesses the minimum qualification on the date of appointment, the defect of qualification, which lie had on the date of making the application, would be cured. In the opinion of the learned Judge, the requirement of minimum qualification was not to be seen with reference to the date of occurring of the vacancy but with reference to the date on which the appointment was made. 9. In Shanti Devi v. Deputy Director of Education (supra) also, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.N. Shukla, A.C.J., (as he then was) concerned with the controversy relating to Regulation 10. In that case the Hon'ble Judge was not called upon to consider, and interpret Regulation 6. Before him also the case of Committee of Management, Paramhans Intermediate College Hanumaimagar, Azamgarh v. Additional Director of Education, U.P. Allahabad (supra) was cited. The learned Judge distinguished that case by observing that the case before the Bench was of Regulation 6 whereas before him it was of Regulation 10. In as much as the phraseology of Regulation was different from that of Regulation 10. The learned Judge distinguished that case by observing that the case before the Bench was of Regulation 6 whereas before him it was of Regulation 10. In as much as the phraseology of Regulation was different from that of Regulation 10. In one case the requirement of minimum qualification is with reference to the date of occurring of the vacancy whereas in the other it has to be with reference to the date of appointment. In fact, there is nothing in the case of Shanti Devi which supports the contention of the respondent. 10. For the facts stated above, we find that two things required by Regulation No. 6(1), namely, five years' experience and the minimum qualification for teaching, have to be established with reference to the date of occurring of the vacancy. If on that date a person applying for the post, did not possess any one of the two qualifications, he would not be qualified. Consequently, the impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools, having not taken note of the aforesaid requirements, must be set aside on the ground that it is invalid and illegal. 11. After the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, was passed the petitioner had filed present writ petition and obtained stay order on 24-11-1980. On account of the stay order, the post must not have been filled up and it has now to be done in accordance with the law which is prevalent today. 12. The writ petition is consequently, allowed. The order of the District Inspector of Schools. Jaunpur dated 22-8-1980 is quashed. The stay order is discharged. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.