JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - A.S.C. Singh, for petitioner ; Raj Kumar Jain, for respondents. K.C. Agrawal, J. - Abdul Mannan, who is a teacher in the C.T. grade in the Maulana Azad inter College, Anian Shaheed, District Azamgarh, has prayed for quashing of the order dated November 25, 1982, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh awarding L.T. grade to respondent no. 3, Iftakhar Ahmad. The petitioner has claimed in this petition that instead of said respondent no. 3, L.T. grade should have been given to him. 2. In the aforesaid College, the sanctioned strength of lecturers was six and that of the L.T. grade teacher is 11. Mirza Mahfooz Beg was in L.T. grade and in that capacity he was teaching Art as one of the subjects to High School Students. He was promoted to the post of lecturer. As a result of his promotion, one post of lecturer in L.T. grade fell vacant Through a resolution dated 14-1-1984, the Committee of Management appointed the petitioner in the aforesaid grade. Approval of this resolution was sought, as is required under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, from the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh. This was not given and instead Iftakhar Ahmad, respondent no. 3, was given the L.T. grade by the District Inspector of Schools. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition was filed. 3. Counsel for the petitioner urged that as Iftakhar Ahmad was not promoted to the post of L.T. grade teachers by the Committee of Management, he could not be given the said grade by the District Inspector of Schools. For this purpose, reliance had also been placed on the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Act where, the counsel pointed out, the Committee of Management alone has been authorised to give the L.T. grade. 4. The writ petition has been contested by respondent no. 3 as well as respondent no. 1. Both the respondents . have alleged that the petitioner was not entitled to be given L.T. grade and, as such, his claim for the same is unjustified and has no merits. Respondent no. 3 has also refuted the allegations of the petitioner that the Committee of Management did not support respondent no. 3 for being given the L.T. grade. 5. We have heard counsel for the parties, we are of opinion that the present writ petition has no merit. 6. Respondent no. 3 has also refuted the allegations of the petitioner that the Committee of Management did not support respondent no. 3 for being given the L.T. grade. 5. We have heard counsel for the parties, we are of opinion that the present writ petition has no merit. 6. In fact the controversy in the present case was about the benefit of the G.O. dated 3rd October, 1974 by which L.T. grade was awardable to a person teaching Art to High School provided that he was otherwise qualified to take and teach other subjects of that standard. The relevant portion of the G.O. is being reproduced below :- "If any Art teacher is appointed in C.T. grade for teaching High School Classes and if he possesses the prescribed educational qualification to teach High School Classes than in that case, that post will be converted into L.T. grade from 1-11-1973 and the L.T. grade will be sanctioned in accordance with the Government Orders. However, it should be kept in mind that the total number of teachers of the school working in different pay-scales should not exceed the norm. For example if by converting the post of an Art Teacher in the graduate scales exceeds the norm by one, the shortage of one teacher of C.T. grade by one, according to the norm, shall not be treated as a shortage because the total number of teachers in the school remains to be in accordance with the norm." 7. From this G.O. it would appear that a teacher who is working in the C.T. grade and has been teaching Art, would be entitled to be given L.T. grade provided he fulfils other qualifications necessary for the same. The respondent no. 3 was appointed in C.T. grade in 1974. He possessed the qualification to teach High School Classes, hence, he was clearly entitled to be given the benefit of this G.O. The benefit was earlier given to him in July, 1979 but was subsequently cancelled on 6th August, 19/9. Against cancellation respondent no. 3 made a representation to the Deputy Director of Education Gorakhpur Division as well as to the Manager of the Committee of Management. The Principal of the College also represented to the District Inspector of Schools about the illegality for cancelling the grant of L.T. grade to the respondent no. 3. Against cancellation respondent no. 3 made a representation to the Deputy Director of Education Gorakhpur Division as well as to the Manager of the Committee of Management. The Principal of the College also represented to the District Inspector of Schools about the illegality for cancelling the grant of L.T. grade to the respondent no. 3. The District Inspector of Schools by the order dated 27-1-1982 summoned all the relevant papers and, thereafter, passed the impugned order dated 25th November, 1982 holding that the respondent 3 was entitled to L.T. grade as had been earlier granted on 13-7-1979. 8. The argument of the petitioner's learned counsel was that L.T. grade could not be given to respondent no. 3 on account of prohibition contained in the U.P. Secondary Education Act inasmuch as to do so amounted to giving of promotion. We do not find merit in this submission. In the circumstances of the present case, giving of L.T. grade which had earlier been allowed to respondent no. 3 could not and did not amount to promoting respondent no. 3. This, in fact, had been done earlier to the coming into force of U.P. Secondary Education Act. Counsel for the petitioner also urged that since the Committee of Management had not passed any resolution, L.T. grade could not be given to respondent no. 3. The question of giving of benefit of the G.O. dated 3rd October, 1974 was not dependent on the passing of any resolution by the Committee of Management. Hence, this argument has no Substance. 9. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it may be true that on 14th January, 1982, a resolution of the Committee of Management was passed but from the counter affidavit, it appears that the same had not been approved by the District Inspector of Schools. Apart from the fact that the petitioner was not entitled to the L.T. grade as it was not available In the College having already been allowed to respondent no. 3, the District Inspector of Schools had also not approved the resolution. In the absence of approval of the resolution, the petitioner did not acquire any right on its basis. 10. The petitioner's counsel next urged that as the impugned order had been passed behind his back, the same is invalid. 3, the District Inspector of Schools had also not approved the resolution. In the absence of approval of the resolution, the petitioner did not acquire any right on its basis. 10. The petitioner's counsel next urged that as the impugned order had been passed behind his back, the same is invalid. The resolution of the Committee of Management relied upon, did not have any legal sanctity, as stated above, had since not been approved by the District Inspector of Schools. No right could accrue to the petitioner on its basis consequently, the grievance of the petitioner that opportunity of hearing was required to be given to him before the impugned order dated 25-11-1982 was passed has no Substance. 11. For what we have said above, the petitioner had no claim to get the L.T. grade and, as such, it would not be possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Stay order is vacated.