JUDGMENT O.P. Mehrotra, J. - In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Laxmi Narain Yadava, who is an Assistant Teacher working in L. T. grade in Boys' Anglo Bengali Inter College, Sunder Bagh, Lucknow has challenged the validity of an order dated 4.10.85 (Annexure16) passed by District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow according approval to the appointment of R.K. Singh, respondent no. 3, as Lecturer in Hindi in the said College. He has also prayed for quashing the subsequent order dated 11.10.85 (Annexure 20) passed by the District Inspector of Schools whereby the petitioner's representation dated 4.10.85 (Annexure 18) was rejected. 2. There is no dispute that the petitioner and respondent no. 3 are Assistant Teachers working in L.T. grade in the said Institution and that Sq R.K. Singh is senior of the two. Sri R.K. Singh is B. Sc. with Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics and is M. A. in both Hindi and Sanskrit and is also L.T. On the other hand, the petitioner in M.A. in Hindi and had Hindi, Sanskrit & Political Science in B. A., and he is also C.T. and B. Ed. Sri R.K. Singh was appointed as a Science Teacher in L.T. grade on 20.8.70. Sri L.N. Yadava was originally a pointed in C. T. grade and was promoted to L. T. grade with effect from 16.9.76. 3. The dispute in this case is with regard to the promotion to the post of Lecturer in Hindi. Sri V.D. Misra who was Lecturer in Hindi proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement with effect from 5.12.84 and ultimately he retired on 30.6.85. As the petitioner was teaching Hindi to High School classes he was directed by the Principal to teach Hindi to Intermediate classes also with effect from 5.12 84 when Sri V. D. Misra proceeded on leave. However, the petitioner as well as respondent no. 3 applied for the post of Lecturer in Hindi which was to be filled up by promotion under 40% quota. The Managing Committee resolved that the Manager and the Principal may examine the qualifications of the two aspirants and send their recommendations. It appears that this SubCommittee examined the claims of the petitioner and respondent no. 3 applied for the post of Lecturer in Hindi which was to be filled up by promotion under 40% quota. The Managing Committee resolved that the Manager and the Principal may examine the qualifications of the two aspirants and send their recommendations. It appears that this SubCommittee examined the claims of the petitioner and respondent no. 3 and also interviewed them and on the basis of their recommendations the then Manager Sri A.K. Mukerji by his order dated 5.4.85 (Annexure 3) appointed petitioner Sri L.N. Yadava as Lecturer in Hindi on adhoc basis with effect from 5.12.84 subject to the approval of District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow. By another letter of the same date (Annexure 4) the Manager referred the matter to the District Inspector of Schools for his approval. It would appear that the District Inspector of Schools did not accord approval and by his letter dated 24.4.85 (Annexure 5) informed the Manager that the proposal had been sent after considerable delay at the fagend of the academic session and hence it was not possible to consider the same. Thereupon by letter dated 3.5.85 (Annexure 6) the Manager requested the District Inspector of Schools to reconsider the matter and accord approval to the promotion of Sri L.N. Yadava, explaining reasons for delay in sending the proposal. In the meanwhile a clear vacancy occurred on 30.6.85 due to the retirement of Sri V.D. Misra who had already proceeded on leave with effect from 5.12.84. The petitioner again applied for his regular promotion to the post of Lecturer in Hindi pointing out that he was the only person eligible for the post and that Sri R. K. Singh was not eligible as he was not B.A. with Sanskrit but was B.Sc. and was although a Mathematics Teacher and had no experience of teaching Hindi. 4. As a clear vacancy had not occurred on the retirement of Sri V.D. Misra, the District Inspector of Schools in continuation of his earlier correspondence asked the Manager to send his proposal for promotion as required in Regulation 6 (3) of Chapter II of the Intermediate Education Act. The matter came up before the Managing Committee in its meeting held on 26.9.85. It appears that there was some difference of opinion between the members as a result of which the matter had to be decided by voting. The matter came up before the Managing Committee in its meeting held on 26.9.85. It appears that there was some difference of opinion between the members as a result of which the matter had to be decided by voting. This time by a majority decision it was resolved to promote Sri R. K. Singh, respondent no.3, vide copy of resolution dated 26.9.85 (Annexure 14). This proposal was approved by the District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 4.10.85 (Annexure 16). The petitioner sent a representation dated 4.10.85 (Annexure 18) but the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 11.10.85 (Annexure 20). The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on 21.11.85. 5. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was that respondent no. 3 was not eligible to be promoted as Lecturer in Hindi as he did not possess the requisite qualifications for the said post. The requisite qualifications laid down for the post of Lecturer in Hindi require that the candidate should be M. A. in Hindi and B. A. with Sanskrit, preferably trained. The petitioner's contention was that respondent no. 3 is a Bachelor of Science and that he is not a Bachelor of Arts, nor he had Sanskrit as a subject in B.A. It was urged that respondent no. 3 may be having higher qualification of M. A. in Sanskrit but he does not fulfil the minimum qualification of being B. A. with Sanskrit. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3, on the other hand, drew our attention to a note appended below the rule prescribing the requisite qualifications which contains a reference to Government Notification no. 4428/XV72 (13)76 dated 16.3.79 according to which the requirement of B.A. with Sanskrit will not be necessary in respect of those teachers who had been duly appointed to teach High School classes prior to 5.4.75 and who possess other prescribed qualifications. It is not disputed that respondent no. 3 had been appointed to teach High School classes prior to 5.4.75 and he possesses all other requisite qualifications. Consequently the requirement of B. A. with Sanskrit will not be applicable to his case. In this connection it may also be pointed out that the above G.O. dated 16.3.79 has been mentioned below the prescribed qualifications for Lecturer in Hindi and for all practical purposes it forms a part of the regulation prescribing essential qualifications. Consequently the requirement of B. A. with Sanskrit will not be applicable to his case. In this connection it may also be pointed out that the above G.O. dated 16.3.79 has been mentioned below the prescribed qualifications for Lecturer in Hindi and for all practical purposes it forms a part of the regulation prescribing essential qualifications. The impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 11.10.85 rejecting the petitioner's representation also contains a reference to the above (government Order dated 16.3.79. In our opinion the District Inspector of Schools had rightly observed that the requirement of B A., with Sanskrit was not applicable in the case of respondent no. 3 and that he possesses all the requisite qualifications for the post in question. Otherwise also we are not impressed by the petitioner's contention. The requirement of B.A. with Sanskrit for the post of Lecturer in Hindi was evidently kept because some Sanskrit is also taught to students offering Hindi in Intermediate. Although respondent no. 3 is not a Graduate with Sanskrit as one of the subjects, yet he is M.A. in Sanskrit and hence he will have no difficulty in teaching Sanskrit to students offering Hindi as a subject in Intermediate classes. In any case it cannot be said that respondent no. 3 does not possess the requisite qualifications for the post of Lecturer in Hindi. 7. It was next contended that the District Inspector of Schools in his letter dated 3.8.85 (Annexure 10) had misguided the Committee of Management by referring to Regulation 6(3) of Chapter II instead of referring to Regulation 6 as a whole. Regulation 6 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act insofar as is relevant for our present purpose reads as follows : (i) Where any vacancy in the Lecturer's grade in the L.T, grade as determined under regulation 5, is to be filled by Promotion, all teachers working in the L.T. or the C.T. grade as the case may be, having a minimum of five years continuous substantive service to their credit on the date of occurrence of the vacancy shall be considered for promotion by the Committee of Management without their having to apply for the same provided they possess the prescribed minimum qualifications for teaching the subject in which the teacher in the Lecturer' grade or in the L.T. grade is required. (2) Selection for promotion to the next higher grade shall be made on basis of service standing, achievements in service, academic qualifications and integrity, (3) Subject to clause (?) where more than one teacher in the L.T. grade are eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer in any subject preference shall be given to the teacher who is the seniormost among them in service in that grade. We agree that instead of referring to Regulation 6(3), the District Inspector of Schools should have required the Management to send its proposal as required in Regulation 6 taken as a whole. However, it does not appear that the Committee of Management was in any way misguided by the fact treat the District Inspector of Schools had referred to Rule 6(3). A perusal of the resolution of Managing Committee dated 26.9.85 (Annexure 14) would) show that the Committee had taken into consideration all the relevant factors which were required to be considered in the matter of promotion. The resolution reads as follows: The post of Hindi Lecturer has fallen vacant on 1.7.85 due to retirement of Sri V.D Misra. The Committee considered all the teachers working in L. T. grade. Out of them two teachers S/Sri R. K. Singh and L.N. Yadava were found fulfilling the prescribed minimum qualifications as given in Appendix of the I.E. Act. The Committee scrutinised their seniority, service records, achievements, academic qualifications and integrity. As Sri R.K. Singh is senior to Sri L.N. Yadava. besides their qualifications it was resolved and passed to promote Sri R.K. Singh keeping in view of the provisions under Regulation 6 of Chapter 2 of the Inter. Education Act under 40% quota of promotion 8. From the above resolution it would appear that the Managing Committee had taken into consideration the seniority of the two teachers viz. the petitioner and respondent no. 3 who were found fulfilling the prescribed minimum qualifications and had also scrutinised their service records, achievements, academic qualifications and integrity. Although the regulations do not specifically provide that experience should also be taken into consideration yet it is not disputed that it has been held in various decisions of this High Court that teaching experience is also a relevant consideration and that the same is included in the term achievements referred to in Regulation 6 (2). Although the regulations do not specifically provide that experience should also be taken into consideration yet it is not disputed that it has been held in various decisions of this High Court that teaching experience is also a relevant consideration and that the same is included in the term achievements referred to in Regulation 6 (2). The Managing Committee had the full facts before it and it was evident that all relevant factors were taken into consideration while deciding as to who should be promoted. If achievement which includes experience was a relevant Consideration, seniority was also an equally relevant consideration. The resolution passed by the Managing Committee shows that all relevant factors were taken into consideration and it cannot be said that the Managing Committed was misguided by the mere fact that reference to Regulation 6 (3) was made in the letter of District Inspector of Schools dated 3.8.85 nor it can be said that the Committee decided in favour of respondent no. 3 only on the basis of his seniority without taking into consideration other relevant criterions. We find that the resolution of the Managing Committee was t le result of cumulative assessment of the various factors including seniority, achievements in service, academic qualifications and integrity as required under the regulations. This contention of the petitioner, therefore, also fails. 9. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that in March and April, 1985 when the matter regarding adhoc appointment in the temporary vacancy created on 5.12.84, was considered, the Comnit tee had recommended the petitioner for appointment on the said post on the basis of perusal of records and interview by a SubCommittee comprising of the Assistant Manager and the Principal, but subsequently when the matter came up for consideration to fulfil the vacancy on permanent basis, the Committee took an altogether different decision. It was urged that the criteria laid down for filling up the vacancy whether on adhoc basis or on regular basis were the same. We agree that the criteria laid down for filling up the vacancy on adhoc basis or on regular basis are not different. It was urged that the criteria laid down for filling up the vacancy whether on adhoc basis or on regular basis were the same. We agree that the criteria laid down for filling up the vacancy on adhoc basis or on regular basis are not different. However, it appears that on the earlier occasion when the post was to be filled up on ad hoc basis, to fill up the temporary vacancy the Managing Committee comprising of the Manager and the Principal who examined the matter and then the Manager appointed the petitioner on ad hoc basis subject to the approval of the District Inspector of Schools. The Manager's letter dated 5.4.85 (Annexure 4) shows that they were under the impression that Sri R.K. Singh, respondent no. 3, did not fulfil the essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer in Hindi and as such he had no claim. This was perhaps the main reason which weighed with them at that time. It is noteworthy that this proposal was never approved by the District Inspector of Schools. Subsequently when a permanent vacancy occurred on the retirement of Sri V.D. Misra on 30.6.85, the matter again came up for decision before the Managing Committee. It may be correct that the Committee could not arrive at a unanimous decision and that they had to resort to voting i n which respondent no. 3 obtained ten votes while the petitioner obtained only four votes and it may also be correct that the former Manager Sri A.K. Mukerji made a note of dissent and two members did not participate in the meeting and in the voting. The fact, however, remains that the Managing Committee after taking all relevant criteria into consideration resolved by a majority decision in favour of respondent no. 3 and the resolution of the Committee was also approved by the District Inspector of Schools. We do not find any illegality in this selection nor the resolution of the Committee appears to be vitiated. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to Regulation 9 of Chapter III which provides that a teacher shall not be confirmed in the appointment until he has passed High School Examination with compulsory Hindi as one of his subjects or an equivalent examination with Hindi (Regular and not Elementary). It was pointed out that respondent no. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to Regulation 9 of Chapter III which provides that a teacher shall not be confirmed in the appointment until he has passed High School Examination with compulsory Hindi as one of his subjects or an equivalent examination with Hindi (Regular and not Elementary). It was pointed out that respondent no. 3 had passed his High School and Intermediate examination from West Bengal Education Board where the standard of Hindi was much lower than the standard of Hindi in Uttar Pradesh. This argument does not at all impress us. We are not aware nor we need enter into the controversy as to whether the standard of Hindi in the examinations held in West Bengal is lower than the standard of Hindi in the examination conducted by the U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Board. The fact remains that respondent no. 3 had 'Compulsory Hindi' as a subject in his High School Examination, which was sufficient compliance of Regulation 9. Moreover we are not inclined to permit the petitioner to raise this plea at this stage when respondent no. 3 had already been confirmed as a L.T. teacher long back and the said confirmation was never challenged. 11. As regards the eligibility of respondent no. 3 for the post of Lecturer in Hindi, the learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to N. B. (Note) (2) below the rule prescribing minimum qualifications for 'Hindi Teachers for Intermediate' contained in Appendix A, provides as follows '. The Hindi Teachers may not be required to have a Degree in Sanskrit in those institutions where qualified Sanskrit teacher is available to teach the Sanskrit portion of the Hindi Course. The above note clarifies the intention why 'B. A. with Sanskrit' was kept as an essential qualification for a Hindi Teacher for Intermediate Classes. The person should be such who can also teach 'Sanskrit portion of the Hindi Course'. The qualification prescribed for Sanskrit Teacher for Intermediate' is M.A. with Sanskrit preferably trained. As respondent no. 3 is M. A. in Sanskrit, he is fully qualified to teach Sanskrit also. Consequently, respondent no. The person should be such who can also teach 'Sanskrit portion of the Hindi Course'. The qualification prescribed for Sanskrit Teacher for Intermediate' is M.A. with Sanskrit preferably trained. As respondent no. 3 is M. A. in Sanskrit, he is fully qualified to teach Sanskrit also. Consequently, respondent no. 3 cannot be said to be disqualified for being appointed teacher in Hindi simply because he is not 'B. A. with Sanskrit', especially when he is M.A. in Sanskrit and is qualified to teach Sanskrit portion of Hindi Course, so that requirement of 'B. A. with Sanskrit' is not applicable in his case. Moreover, respondent no, 3 may not be having Sanskrit as a subject for his Bachelor's degree. He is, however, having Master's Degree in Sanskrit, which is certainly a higher qualification than B.A. with Sanskrit. Consequently, the claim of respondent no. 3 could not be rejected merely on the ground that he is not B.A. with Sanskrit', when he is admittedly M.A. in Sanskrit. 12. It was next contended on behalf of the petitioner that although respondent no. 3 had teaching experience, yet he had throughout been teaching Mathematics and Science and had no experience of teaching Hindi, the subject in which the vacancy had occurred, while the petitioner had always been teaching Hindi, so that he should have been appointed Lecturer in Hindi in preference to respondent no. 3. In the first place parties arc at variance as to whether respondent no. 3 has also some experience of teaching Hindi. Respondent no. 3 aid his M. A. in Hindi in 1976 and M. A. in Sanskrit in 1979 and according to the averments contained in paragraph 7 of his short counter affidavit, he too was teaching Hindi to High School Classes since 1976 and this fact was suppressed by the Assistant Manager. Annexure SI to his supplementary counteraffidavit is a certificate dated 20.2.1985 issued by the Principal of the same institution which recites that respondent no. 3 had also been taking regularly Hindi also in High School Classes and that during the last two sessions he had also taught Hindi to XIth Class. It would appear that though respondent no. 3 was mainly teaching Mathematics and Science, yet he had some experience of teaching Hindi also. However, without entering into the above controversy and even assuming that respondent no. It would appear that though respondent no. 3 was mainly teaching Mathematics and Science, yet he had some experience of teaching Hindi also. However, without entering into the above controversy and even assuming that respondent no. 3 had no teaching experience in the subject of Hindi, we do not think that his claim to the post was liable to be thrown on the mere ground that he had no experience of teaching Hindi. 13. It is note worthy that 'teaching experience in that particular subject' is no where mentioned as a necessary or requisite qualification for promotion. As such it cannot be said that respondent no. 3 was ineligible for the post or that he could not have been promoted as Lecturer in Hindi simply because he did not have the experience of teaching that subject. If that was so, this should have been specifically laid down in the Regulations. Regulation 6 (2) simply provides that selection for promotion shall be made on the basis of 'service record, achievements in service, academic qualifications and in Regulation 6(3) further provides that subject to the provisions of Regulation 6 (2), where more that one teacher is eligible for promotion from the 3ost of L.T. Grade, preference shall be given to the senior most of them. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision in Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 6449 of 1974 Vidya Ram Sharma v. Deputy Director of Education, Meerut, decided on 17.12.1977, in which a Bench of this Court observed that on a reasonable interpretation of Regulation 18, it would always be conducive to efficiency in teaching if the teaching experience is in the subject concerned, for which vacancies may have occurred. A person teaching Biology cannot be better equipped to teach Economics than a person teaching Economics. A similar view was taken in the case of Smt. Basanti Gaur v. Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Gorakhpur in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7147 of 1979 decided by Full Bench of this Court on 10.2.1987. 15. There can be no doubt regarding the law laid down in the above decisions. Every case, however, has to be decided on the basis of the peculiar facts of that case. The position in the present case is somewhat different. The post in this case is that of a Lecturer in Hindi which is not a technical or scientific subject. There can be no doubt regarding the law laid down in the above decisions. Every case, however, has to be decided on the basis of the peculiar facts of that case. The position in the present case is somewhat different. The post in this case is that of a Lecturer in Hindi which is not a technical or scientific subject. No doubt, 'teaching experience in the particular subject' is also one of the relevant criterion, yet this would not mean that the person having teaching experience in that particular subject must always be preferred and that a person who has little or no such teaching experience cannot be appointed despite the fact that he is senior and after taking into consideration all relevant criteria the Managing Committee considers him better suited for the post and recommends his name. We also do not find any substance pi the petitioner's contention that respondent no. 3 was promoted merely on the ground that he was senior to the petitioner. As held by a Division Bench of this Court in Shamsher Bahadur Singh v. D. I.O.S., Mirzapur (1985 U.P. Local Bodies and Educational Cases, page 592) for a selection for promotion to the next higher grade, seniority is not the sole criterion. It is the cumulative assessment of various factors including seniority, such as achievements in service, academic qualifications and integrity, on the basis of which the selection is made. The resolution of the Committee of Management (Annexure XIV) clearly shows that all relevant criteria were kept in mind while making selection. The entire material was before the Managing Committee. If after taking all relevant criteria as laid down in Regulation 6 (2) and 6 (3) into consideration the Managing Committee considered respondent no. 3 more suitable for the post and recommended his name and the D.I.O.S. also approved the proposal, we do not think it proper for us to interfere in the matter. In our opinion, the management was perfectly within its means to recommend the name of respondent no. 3 for the post and we are further of the opinion that the D.I.O.S. did not commit any illegality in approving the said proposal. Consequently we see no good ground to interfere in the matter. 16. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this petition and accordingly dismiss the same, but make no order as to costs.