JUDGMENT O.P. Saxena, J. - By this petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioner has prayed for a writ of Certiorari quashing the Order dated 29th Nov., 1985 passed by opposite party No. 1 (Vide annexure-1 to the writ petition) and other consequential reliefs. 2. There is Sarvjanik Inter College, Heidegger, district Burbank. The Petitioner and opposite parties 3 and 4 were Teachers in the College. There were three posts in the higher grade of Lecturers. One was to be filled by direct recruitment and two were to be filled by promotion. The Petitioner was selected by direct recruitment. Opposite parties 3 and 4 were promoted. The proposals of the Committee of Management regarding the appointment of the Petitioner and opposite parties 3 and 4 were sent to opposite party No. 1 for approval. On 12th July, 1972 he approved the proposal for appointment of opposite parties 3 and 4 in the Lecturers grade by promotion. On 18th July, 1972 he approved the proposal for appointment of the Petitioner in the Lecturers grade by direct recruitment. A meeting of the Committee of Management was convened on 18th July, 1972 and the Petitioner and opposite parties 3 and 4 were given appointment on the basis of approval by opposite party No. 1. Annexure-RA 5 is a copy of the proceedings of the meeting. AH the three persons joined on 19th July, 1972, Annexure-RA 6 is the copy of the [Bill Book and Acquaintance Roll for the month of July, 1972. The Committee of Management treated the Petitioner as senior most in the Lecturers grade. Opposite party No. 3 preferred an appeal before the District Inspector of Schools. On 29th Nov., 1985 the appeal was allowed and it was held that opposite party No. 3 is senior most, that opposite party No. 4 is next after him and that the Petitioner is junior most of the three persons appointed as Lecturers. The question of appointment of a Principal of this College is also under consideration before the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission. Rule 4 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1983 provides that for the post of the Head of an institution, the Management shall forward the names of two senior most Teachers, copies of their service record (including character rolls) and such other records or particulars as the Commission may require from time to time. Rule 4 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1983 provides that for the post of the Head of an institution, the Management shall forward the names of two senior most Teachers, copies of their service record (including character rolls) and such other records or particulars as the Commission may require from time to time. As the order passed by the opposite party No. 1 affects the prospects of the Petitioner in the selection for the post of the Principal, he has filed this petition for quashing the impugned order and for a direction for treating him as a senior-most Teacher. 3. Sri B.C. Saxena, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, referred to Regulation 3(1) of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Regulation 3(1) provides that the Committee of Management of every institution shall cause a seniority list of Teachers to be prepared in accordance with the following provisions: (a) The seniority list shall be prepared separately for each grade of teachers whether permanent or temporary, on any substantive post; (b) Seniority of teachers in a grade shall be determined on the basis of their substantive appointment in that grade, if two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age; 4. Sri Saxena submitted that the Petitioner and opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed on the same date and the Petitioner was senior most in age. The date of Petitioner's birth was given as 10th July, 1934 in annexure 3 to the writ petition. The dates of birth of opposite parties 3 and 4 were of later years. It was urged that the District Inspector of Schools should not have taken into consideration the inter se seniority of the Petitioner and opposite parties 3 and 4 in the lower grade of teachers and should have considered the seniority of the parties in the higher grade of Lecturers in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 3(I) referred to above. 5. Sri S.C. Misra learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3 submitted that the date of approval by the District Inspector of Schools is the material date for considering inter se seniority in a grade. 5. Sri S.C. Misra learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3 submitted that the date of approval by the District Inspector of Schools is the material date for considering inter se seniority in a grade. He urged that the District Inspector of Schools approved the appointment of opposite parties 3 and 4 by promotion on 12th July, 1972 whereas he approved the appointment of Petitioner on 18th July, 1972. He argued that a Committee of Management cannot withhold the seniority of a Lecturer on the basis of a delayed action in issuing the appointment order. According to him appointment order is a mere ministerial act and the absence of a formal order of appointment would not affect the inter se seniority of Lecturers whose approval was made on different dates. 6. Opposite party No. 4 was personally served but he did not put any contest. The learned Standing Counsel also did not file any counter -affidavit on behalf of opposite party No. 1. 7. This case raises an interesting question as to whether the date on which the District Inspector of Schools approves the appointment of a certain person as lecturer of a College is the material date for determining the inter se seniority irrespective of the fact as to whether or not the said person was working in that grade on the said date and whether or not a formal letter of appointment was issued by the Committee of Management. 8. Chapter 2 of Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 has been substituted vide notification No. 3183/XV-7-76-2 (18)-75 published in the U.P. Gazette Extra-ordinary dated 7th July, 1976. The appointment of Petitioner and opposite parties 3 and 4 was made in July, 1972 and as such we have to refer to the provisions then in vague. Section 16F(1) provided as below: (a) "Subject to the provisions hereinafter specified, no person shall be appointed as a Principal, Headmaster or teacher in a recognized institution unless he (a) possess the prescribed qualifications or has been exempted Under Sub-section (1) of Section 16E, (b) has been recommended by Selection Committee constituted Under Sub-section (2) or (3), as the case may be, of the said section and approved, in the case of Principal or Head-Master by the Regional Deputy Director, Education, and in the case of a teacher by the Inspector. .... .... Regulation 9 of Chapter II of the Regulations provided as below I "Where a post is to be filled by direct recruitment, the following procedure and conditions shall apply: (b) The post shall be advertised locally in Hindi and English papers at least in one of the papers with State vide circulation, giving all necessary particulars and qualifications prescribed for the post and allowing (sic) time for the receipt of applications and forms for which will be obtainable from the School Office. (c) An application by a person employed is an institution and applying for a post elsewhere shall not be withheld by his employer, Applications received shall be serially numbered and entered in a register and particulars of the candidates noted under appropriate columns. This register shall constitute a permanent record of the institution. The register along with all the applications received shall be sent by the Manager to the Chairman of Selection Committee who may obtain the opinion of the members of the Committee by calling a meeting or by correspondence, for deciding as to which candidates may be called for interview. The number of candidates to be called for interview shall not (number of applicants permitting) be less than three times the number of vacancies to be filled. The Chairman shall also fix the date and time of Selection, inform the Manager accordingly and return all the papers to him. The Manager shall intimate by registered post all the members of the Selection Committee as well as such candidates as called for interview, the date, time and place of the Selection at least ten days before it is held. (d) A prcis showing the names, qualifications and other particulars in respect of every candidate shall be placed before each member of Selection Committee. Selection shall be made on the basis of academic qualifications, training, teaching or administrative experience and general fitness of the candidate for the post. The Selection Committee shall prepare note on the proceedings of the Selection held, and record its date. The name of the Selected candidate along with two others in the waiting list drawn up in order of merit and the list and the note both signed by the members present at the selection shall be forwarded to the Inspector or Regional Inspectors of Girls' Schools, as the case may be, for approval. The name of the Selected candidate along with two others in the waiting list drawn up in order of merit and the list and the note both signed by the members present at the selection shall be forwarded to the Inspector or Regional Inspectors of Girls' Schools, as the case may be, for approval. (e) No member of the Selection Committee shall take part in selection, if any relation of his, in terms of Regulation 4, Chapter III, is a candidate for the post. Regulation 10 provided as below: Regulations 9 and 9 above shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case where a vacancy is to be filled by promotion which will in addition be governed by Chapter III of the Regulations. Regulation 16 provided as below: 16. Order of appointment-Within two weeks of receipt of approval of the selected candidates for appointment as Principal, Headmaster or teacher the Manager shall, on authorization Under a resolution of the Committee of Management, issue an order of appointment to the candidate mentioning therein among other particulars, the salary, scale of pay and period of probation and with instructions to join duty within a fortnight of the receipt of the appointment order. The appointment of a candidate failing to report for duty within this period will be liable to termination. A copy of the order of appointment shall be sent to the authority prescribed in Section 16F(2) read with Section 16G(5) for information and record to his office. Regulations 10 and 16 make it clear that the procedure for the appointment of a teacher by promotion was substantially similar to the procedure for appointment of a teacher by direct recruitment and in both cases a letter of appointment had to be issued within two weeks of the receipt of the approval of the selected candidate. Regulation 3(1) clearly provides that the seniority of teachers in a grade shall be determined on the basis of their substantive appointment In that grade. If two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date seniority shall be determined on the basis of age. Regulation 3(1) does not provide that seniority of teachers in a grade shall be determined by the date of approval of selection by the District Inspector of Schools. If we accept the argument of Sri Misra, we will be importing words into a statute which are not there. Regulation 3(1) does not provide that seniority of teachers in a grade shall be determined by the date of approval of selection by the District Inspector of Schools. If we accept the argument of Sri Misra, we will be importing words into a statute which are not there. This will be against the established norms of interpretation of statute. 9. The cases relied upon by Sri Misra are distinguishable on the ground that in each one of these cases, the teacher had been allowed to work and was actually working in the selected grade on the date of approval. It the Committee of Management permits a teacher to join service in anticipation of the approval of the District Inspector of Schools, the teacher gets requisite status from the date of approval and in that case the non-observance of the formality of a letter of appointment will not affect his status. We are, however, very clear in our minds that if the Committee of Management does not permit a teacher to work in the selected grade in anticipation of the approval of a District Inspector of Schools and a teacher is not so working on the said day, a formal letter of appointment has to be given within two weeks of the approval. If the Committee of Management makes the appointment within two weeks of the approval, it is the date of substance dive appointment which would be relevant for determining the seniority under Regulation 3(1) referred to above. 10. In the case of Arya Kanya Pathshala v. Smt. Manorama Devi Agnihotri 1971 ALJ 983 it was held that Section 16F(1) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is mandatory and not directory. If a person is appointed Principal of an institution without the prior approval of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, the appointment is, in the eye of law no appointment at all and Section 16G(3) of the Act will not apply to such a case. In this case the service of a teacher appointed without the approval of the Regional Deputy Director of Education was terminated. The plea that the teacher was entitled to the benefit of Section 16G(3) of the Act as the approval of the District Inspector of Schools was not obtained prior to the termination of service was repelled. 11. In Prabhu Narain Singh Vs. The plea that the teacher was entitled to the benefit of Section 16G(3) of the Act as the approval of the District Inspector of Schools was not obtained prior to the termination of service was repelled. 11. In Prabhu Narain Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Education, V Region and Another, (1977) AWC 358 on 7th August 1972 the Petitioner was selected by the Committee of Management and papers were forwarded for the approval of the District Inspector of Schools. The Petitioner was given charge in anticipation of the approval. The approval was accorded on 10th August, 1972. The Petitioner was dismissed on 25th May, 1973 without the approval of the District Inspector of Schools. A Division Bench of this Court referred to Regulation 16 of Chapter 2 of Regulations and observed on page 360: It is no doubt true that these Regulations contemplate a letter of appointments, but the mere fact that management withholds the letter of appointment, cannot result in an approved candidate being deprived of his right to be appointed as a teacher on account of the purposeful lapse on the part of the management. The management cannot take advantage of its own wrong, even though approval has been granted by the District Inspector of Schools.... 12. The petition was allowed and the order of termination was quashed. 13. It would appear that the above observations were made only in the background that the Petitioner was already working on the dace of approval and in such a case mere non-issue of a formal letter of appointment was held to be inconsequential. 14. In Lalit Mohan Misra v. District Inspector of Schools 1979 ALJ 1025 the Petitioners were appointed demonstrators by a resolution passed by a Committee of Management on 23rd July, 1971. The Petitioners were allowed to join service on 31st July, 1971. The selection of Petitioners and opposite party No. 3 was approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 3rd August, 1971, where after appointment letters were given to the Petitioners and opposite party No. 3. The latter joined the institution on 4th August, 1971. The Petitioners were allowed to join service on 31st July, 1971. The selection of Petitioners and opposite party No. 3 was approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 3rd August, 1971, where after appointment letters were given to the Petitioners and opposite party No. 3. The latter joined the institution on 4th August, 1971. On 9th November, 1976 the District Inspector of Schools modified the letter made whereby he had approved the selection of Petitioners and opposite party No. 3 and directed that the Petitioners would be treated as having been placed on probation with effect from 31st July, 1971, i.e. three days before the date of approval. Opposite party No. 3 made a representation to the District Inspector of Schools. After hearing the parties the District Inspector of Schools directed that the Petitioners should be deemed to have joined with effect from 4th August, 1971 in accordance with the Regulations made under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. Opposite party No. 3 was declared senior to the Petitioners. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court: The provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act make it clear that no person can be appointed as Principal or teacher of the institution unless he is approved by the District Inspector of Schools, or the Deputy Director of Education, as the case may be. Without-approval the person does not get the status of a teacher, even though the approval is to be followed by a formal letter, but in the absence of formal letter the person gets the status of a teacher after approval to the appointment is given by the District Inspector of Schools. The appointment of a person as a teacher becomes effective only from the date approval is given and even if a person is allowed to work before that the same has no recognition under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. 15. In Smt. Omi Bala Nigam v. Regional Inspectors of Girls Schools, Janis 1985 Edu. Cas. 304 the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 were appointed teachers on 27th June, 1964. They were intimated that they should join service on 1st July, 1964 or immediately thereafter. The Respondent No. 4 joined service on 1st July, 1964. The Petitioner joined service on 6th July, 1964. The District Inspector of Schools approved the appointment on 15th September, 1964. Cas. 304 the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 were appointed teachers on 27th June, 1964. They were intimated that they should join service on 1st July, 1964 or immediately thereafter. The Respondent No. 4 joined service on 1st July, 1964. The Petitioner joined service on 6th July, 1964. The District Inspector of Schools approved the appointment on 15th September, 1964. The Committee of Management held the Petitioner to be senior to Respondent No. 4 on the basis of age as they were appointed on the same day. The appellate authority reversed the order. The writ was allowed. The plea that the Respondent No. 4 should be held to be senior to the Petitioner as the latter joined service on 6th July, 1964 was repelled. It is in this background that the Division Bench of this Court held: The date of substantive appointment spoken of in clause of Regulations 3 of Chapter II of the Act should be construed as the date after approval has been accorded by the District Inspector of Schools u/s 16G. Inasmuch as requirement is to obtain prior approval to the appointment, a date on which a teacher joins before approval would not be considered a date of substantive appointment. As stated above, approval is a condition precedent to appointment. Without approval, there could be no appointment and joining of service would be in contravention of the provisions of the Act and Regulations framed there under. Accordingly, seniority could not be counted with effect from that date. 16. It would thus appeal that in this case also the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 were actually working on the date of approval. 17. Sri Misra could not draw our attention to any case in which a teacher may not have been actually working on the date of approval and may have been accorded seniority from the date of approval irrespective of the date of appointment. 18. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the District Inspector of Schools should not have taken into consideration the inter se seniority of the Petitioner and opposite parties 3 and 4 prior to their appointment in the Lecturers grade and should have determined seniority in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 3(1) of Chapter III of the Regulations. 18. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the District Inspector of Schools should not have taken into consideration the inter se seniority of the Petitioner and opposite parties 3 and 4 prior to their appointment in the Lecturers grade and should have determined seniority in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 3(1) of Chapter III of the Regulations. The Petitioner and opposite parties 3 and 4 were appointed by a resolution passed by the Committee of Management on 18th July, 1972 and they assumed charge in the Lecturers grade on 19th July, 1972. The date of their appointment and the date of their joining service is the same. The seniority inter se has to be determined on the basis of age. 19. In view of the above discussion we allow the petition and quash the impugned order dated 29th November, 1985, vide copy annexure-1. We direct that the Petitioner shall be treated as the senior most vis-r-vis opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4. In the circumstances of the case, we deem it proper that the parties should bear their own Costs.