JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - The Petitioner was a candidate for the post of Principal of the Dayanand Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Thaur, Jauspur. The selection was to be made by the Commission constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the -Act). The Petitioner, however, was not selected. Aggrieved, he has filed the present writ petition. 2. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner had already been selected as Principal of the College by its Committee of Management in the year 1976 and consequently there was no question of making any selection or appointment to that post no. Suffice is to say so far as this submission is concerned that no material has been brought to our notice from the record of the writ petition indicating that the post of Principal was at any time advertised in the year 1976 inviting applications, that any selection committer was constituted which considered the case of the applicants who may have applied 'or the said post and that the petitioner was ultimately selected by the selection Committee As such, it cannot be said that the Petitioner had already been selected and appointed as Principal in accordance with relevant rules applicable in l976. 3. It was then contended that the appointment of the Petitioner as Principal of the College stood regularized in view of paragraph 5 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board (Amendment) Ordinance 1985 (U.P. Ordinance No. 12 of 1985). A perusal of paragraph 5 of the said Ordinance indicates that it applies to such a person who has been appointed by direct recruitment under paragraph 2 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order 1981. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in support of this submission placed reliance on copy of order dated 16th July 1982 passed by the District Inspector of Schools attached as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. This indicates that the ad-hoc appointment of the Petitioner was made not by direct recruitment but by promotion. In this view of the matter, the Petitioner is obviously not entitled even for the benefit of paragraph 5 of the aforesaid Ordinance. 4. This indicates that the ad-hoc appointment of the Petitioner was made not by direct recruitment but by promotion. In this view of the matter, the Petitioner is obviously not entitled even for the benefit of paragraph 5 of the aforesaid Ordinance. 4. It was then contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Sections 9 and 9 of the Act and Regulations 8(1) and framed by the Commission in exercise of the power conferred on it by Section 84 thereof are ultra-virus. In so far as the validity of Sections 9 and 9 of the Act Is concerned, it has been held in Indraraj Singh Yadav v. U.P. Madhaymik Shiksha Sewa Ayog, Allahabad, 1984 Education Cases 197 that Section 9 and 9 are not ultra-virus. In regard to his challenge to Regulation 8(1) and the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has invited our attention to Section 10(2) of the Act which provides that the procedure of Selection of candidates for appointment to the posts of such teacher be such as may be prescribed provided that the Commission shall, with a view to inviting talented persons, give wide publicity in the State to the vacancies notified Under Sub-section (1). Section 34 on the other hand inter-alias provides that the Commission may, with the previous approval of the State Government, make or amend regulations prescribing fees for holding selections, for conducting examinations where necessary, or for holding interviews and laying down the procedure to be followed by the Commission for discharging its duties and performing its functions under the Act. The Commission has framed Regulations known as U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulation, 1983. Regulation 8(1) and the validity whereof has been challenged read thus j 8. Procedure for selection and interview (1) The preformed for submission of applications and the procedure and methodology for (d) organizing interviews, (e) evaluation of candidates consequent to the interview, will be as decided by the Commission from time to time. "The submission made by counsel for the Petitioner is that the procedure and methodology for organizing interview and evaluation of candidates consequent to the interview also should have been provided for in the Regulations after previous approval of the State Government as contemplated by Section 34 of the Act. The relevant words used in Section 34 of the Act in this behalf are: ...making...regulations...for holding interviews ". The relevant words used in Section 34 of the Act in this behalf are: ...making...regulations...for holding interviews ". Whereas Clause (d) of Regulation 8(1) refers to " organizing interviews " and Clause (e) to " evaluation of candidates consequent to the interview ", Regulation 3 lays down the procedure for meeting of the Commission and Regulation 4 deals with maintenance of minute book. Regulation 5 provides for general procedure for convenient and expeditious transaction of its business by the Commission. Regulation 6 provides for the constitution of the interview board and the procedure to be followed by it. Regulation 7 provides that the Commission shall prepare a penal of experts for each subject in which the Commission holds interviews or may constitute a committee for the purpose. Different committees may be constituted for different subjects and the reports of the committees are to be laid before the Commission for approval. Regulation 8(6) also moves a provision about holding interview and it reads as hereunder : A member of the Commission or expert shall not be a member of an interview Board if any candidate appearing before the Interview Board is related to him. Where a candidate is related to such member or, for any other reason he does not want to associate himself with the interview ot any particular candidate he shall bring the fact to the notice of the Commission. Thereupon he shall withdraw from the Interview Board or such candidate may be directed to appear before another Interview Board functioning concurrently. A conspectus of the various 'regulations referred to above makes it clear that detailed procedures have been prescribed by these regulations with previous approval of the State Government for " holding interviews " as contemplated by Section 34 of the Act. The procedure and methodology which has been left to be decided by the Commission from time to time Under clauses and of Regulation 3(1) is in our opinion which is really incidental or conducive to the discharge of its functions by the Commission Under the Act and the regulations made there under for holding interviews. As seen above details about the constitution of the selection board which is to hold interviews and the procedure to be followed by it is contained in other regulations referred to above for which previous approval of the State Government has admittedly been obtained. As seen above details about the constitution of the selection board which is to hold interviews and the procedure to be followed by it is contained in other regulations referred to above for which previous approval of the State Government has admittedly been obtained. The legislature in its wisdom has thought it appropriate to confer the power of making selections for the posts of teachers which in view of Section 2(3) of the Act means a person employed for imparting instructions in an institution and includes a principal or a head-master, on a Commission under the Act. 5. Section 4 provides for the composition of the Commission and its perusal indicates that the members of the Commission are eminent persons. As seen above Regulation 6 makes provision for interview board. In view of Regulation 6 (9) the proceedings of the interview boards are also to be placed before the Commission for approval and it is this Commission which has been given the power under Regulation 8(1) inter alias to decide the procedure and methodology for organizing interviews and evaluation of candidates consequent to the interview. 6. Since the entire regulations including Regulation 8(1) and have been framed with the previous approval of the State Government it is apparent that the State Government has approved that the procedure and anthropology for organizing interviews and evaluation of candidates consequent to the interview are to be decided by the Commission from time to time. Wherever a Commission is constituted certain powers in order to facilitate its day to day working as also those which are incidental in nature or are conducive to discharge of its functions have to be left in its discretion. Section 9 of the Act deals with the powers and duties of the Commission. Clause of Section 9 provides that the Commission shall have the power " to perform such other duties and exercise such other powers as may be prescribed may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of its functions under this Act or the Rules or Regulations made there under ". Clause therefore contemplates two kinds of duties and powers-(1) as may be prescribed, and (2) as may be incidental and conducive to the discharge of its functions. Section 24 of the Act, as seen above, deals with the power to make regulations. Clause therefore contemplates two kinds of duties and powers-(1) as may be prescribed, and (2) as may be incidental and conducive to the discharge of its functions. Section 24 of the Act, as seen above, deals with the power to make regulations. Section 35 on the other hand deals with power of the State Government to make Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Sections 34 and 35, therefore refer to such powers and duties of the Commission "as may be prescribed" within the meaning of clause of Section 9 of the Act. The source of the powers and duties "as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of its functions under this Act or the Rules and Regulations made there under" is the latter part of clause of Section 9 of the Act and not the earlier part thereof which refers to duties and powers "as may be prescribed ". When the powers and duties as may be incidental or conducive to the discharges of its functions by the Commission have been left at the discretion of the Commission by the latter part of clause of Section 9 of the Act it cannot be said that Regulations with the previous approval of the State Government as contemplated by Section 34 of the Act have to be framed even in regard to such duties and powers. On a perusal of clauses to of Regulation 8(1) we are of opinion that the duties and powers referred to therein are of the nature contemplated by the aforesaid latter part of clause of Section 9 of the Act. In this view of the matter when the procedure and methodology for the exercise of the duties and powers referred to in Clause (a) to ( f ) of Regulation 8(1) which in our opinion are duties and powers of the nature contemplated by the aforesaid latter part of Clause (j) of Section 9 of the Act have been left to be decided by the Commission in its discretion from time to time, it is not possible to take the view that Regulations 8(1) and are ultra-virus as urged by counsel for the Petitioner. 7. Lastly it was urged that marking was done by the Commission erroneously as a result of which the Petitioner could not be selected as Principal. 7. Lastly it was urged that marking was done by the Commission erroneously as a result of which the Petitioner could not be selected as Principal. In so far as this submission is concerned it may be pointed out that in Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 1981 SC 1777 it was held by the Supreme Court: It is for the interviewing body to choose the appropriate method of marking at the selection to each service. There cannot be any magic formulae in these matters and courts cannot sit in judgment over the methods of marking employed by interviewing bodies unless as we said, it is proven or obvious that the method of marking was chosen with oblique motive. Nothing has been brought to our notice to indicate that the Commission or the Interview Board had any oblique motive in choosing the method of marking. 8. No other point has been pressed. 9. In the result we find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. A copy of this order may be supplied to counsel for the Petitioner within a week on payment of usual charges.