JUDGMENT D.S. SINHA, J. 1. THIS petition was dismissed on 12th October, 1988 for the reasons to be delivered later. Here are the reasons. 2. ON 26th December, 1986, a vacancy on the post of L. T. Grade Drawing Teacher in Raja Kamlakar Inter College, Shankergarh, district Allahabad, arose. The vacancy was to be filled by promotion under 40% quota. It is averred that the Committee of Management of the College by means of a communication dated 8th October, 1987, addressed to the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, a copy whereof is annexure 3 to the petition, recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion to the aforesaid post and requested. the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad to forward the name of the petitioner to U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission, hereinafter called the Commission, for selection. It appears that the name of Sri Madhav Sharan Tripathi, the respondent no. 1, who was senior to petitioner, was not forwarded. He, therefore, made a representation to the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad on 10th October, 1987. A copy of this representation is to be found on record as annexure 4 to the petition. As a result of this representation the Committee of Management was directed to forward the service record of the respondent no. 1 also to the Commission. The Commission selected the respondent no. 1. The Secretary of the Commission, by means of his communication dated nil, annexure 5 to the petition, informed the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad about the selection of the respondent no. 1. It is this communication which is impugned in the instant writ petition. The case of the petitioner, as it appears from the assertions made in the petition and submissions made on his behalf, is that he was the only teacher qualified to be promoted to the post in question and Madhav Sharan Tripathi, the respondent no. 1, was not qualified to be promoted inasmuch as he had never worked in C. T. Grade as Drawing Teacher. 3. THREE counter affidavits have been filed. The Committee of Management, the respondent no. 2, has supported the case of the petitioner. 4. THE stand taken by Madhav Sharan Tripathi, respondent no. 1, is that he was fully qualified to be promoted as L. T. Grade Drawing Teacher. 3. THREE counter affidavits have been filed. The Committee of Management, the respondent no. 2, has supported the case of the petitioner. 4. THE stand taken by Madhav Sharan Tripathi, respondent no. 1, is that he was fully qualified to be promoted as L. T. Grade Drawing Teacher. His further case is that for being qualified to be promoted to the post of Drawing Teacher in L. T. Grade, there is no requirement for being Drawing Teacher in C. T. Grade. THE respondent no. 1 also contends that the petitioner himself was not qualified for being considered for promotion to the L. T. Grade inasmuch as he, being untrained, was not a teacher in C. T. Grade in the eye of law. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission the stand is that it considered the candidature of teachers of the C. T. Grade of the institution eligible for promotion and found the respondent no. 1 to be the senior most amongst them possessing all the qualifications prescribed for promotion to L. T. Grade teacher. According to Commission respondent no. 1 was most suitable for promotion. It, therefore, approved the promotion of the respondent no. 1 as Drawing Teacher in the L. T. Grade. The Commission has reiterated that the promotion of the respondent no. 1 was strictly in accordance with the rule 9 of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules. 5. THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the selection of the respondent no. 1 was bad and in support of his contention he made the following two submissions:- (a) Respondent no. 1 was not eligible for promotion to the L. T. Grade inasmuch as at the relevant time he was not working as Drawing Teacher in the C. T. Grade, and (b) before selecting the respondent no. 1 the Commission did not give any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. 1 was not eligible for promotion to the L. T. Grade inasmuch as at the relevant time he was not working as Drawing Teacher in the C. T. Grade, and (b) before selecting the respondent no. 1 the Commission did not give any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. FOR proper appreciation of the contentions of the learned counsel it would be apposite to notice the provisions of Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983, as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (First Amendment) Rules, 1983, published in U. P. Extra-Ordinary Gazette dated July 1, 1983, which are as below:- "9 (1) Where any vacancy is to be filled by promotion, all teachers working in L. T. or C. T. Grade, who possess the minimum qualifications and have put in at least 5 years continuous service as teacher on the date of occurrence of vacancy shall be considered for promotion to the Lecturer or L. T. Grade, as the case may be, without their having applied for the same. NOTE-for the purpose of this sub-rule, service rendered in any other recognised institution shall count for eligibility, unless interrupted by removal, dismissal or reduction to a lower post. (2) The criterian for promotion shall be seniority subject to the rejection of unfit. (3) The management shall prepare a list of teachers, referred to in sub- rule (1), and forward it to the Commission through the Inspector with a copy of seniority list, service records (including the character rolls) and a statement in the proforma given in Appendix 'A'. (4) Within three weeks of the receipt of the list from the management under sub-rule (3) the Inspector shall verify the facts and forward the list to the Commission. (5) The Commission shall, after calling for such additional information as it may consider necessary, intimate the name of selected candidate or candidates to the Inspector with a copy to the Manager of the Institution. (5) The Commission shall, after calling for such additional information as it may consider necessary, intimate the name of selected candidate or candidates to the Inspector with a copy to the Manager of the Institution. (6) Within 10 days of the receipt of the intimation from the Commission under sub-rule (5), the Inspector shall send the name of the selected; candidate (s) to the Manager of the concerned institution and the provisions of sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 8 shall mutatis mutandis apply." On a meaningful consideration of the aforesaid rule, which regulates the procedure for appointments by promotion to the Lecturer or L. T. Grade, we find that none of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner can be upheld. For being promoted to the Lecturer or L. T. Grade one has to possess, (a) minimum academic qualification (b) five years' continuous service as teacher in the C. T. or L. T. Grade, as the case may be, on the date of occurrence of vacancy. Service as a teacher in a particular subject is not a requirement for being promoted under the above rule. Requirement of service as a teacher in the concerned subject on the date of occurrence of vacancy was no doubt material till before 1st July, 1983. Under the amended Rule 9 the said requirement has been done away. 7. REGARDING the second submission the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any provision either in the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 or U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 or any order which obliges the Commission to give a hearing to any candidate before selection under Rule 9 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983. The selection in the aforesaid rule has to be made on the basis of record of the candidates concerned submitted to the Commission by the institution through the District Inspector of Schools. We are not persuaded to hold that the Commission is under any obligation to give any opportunity of hearing etc. to any candidate in the matter of selection for appointment by promotion under the aforesaid Rule 9. 8. THE twin contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner have no force and are, therefore, rejected. We are not persuaded to hold that the Commission is under any obligation to give any opportunity of hearing etc. to any candidate in the matter of selection for appointment by promotion under the aforesaid Rule 9. 8. THE twin contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner have no force and are, therefore, rejected. There is yet another important aspect of the matter worthy of notice, namely, the assertion that the candidature of the petitioner could not be considered for selection for appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher in L. T. Grade by promotion inasmuch as he was not an Assistant Teacher in C. T. Grade in the eye of law as he was not trained and his initial appointment was bad. The averment in this regard is in para 4 of the affidavit of Sri Madhav Sharan Tripathi, the respondent no. 1, which is reproduced below:- "That the contents of paragraph 2 of the writ petition need no comments. However, it may be stated that there was no need of Art Teacher in the C. T. Grade at the time when the advertisement was made. The petitioner's application was illegally considered by the selection committee inasmuch as he was not even qualified for being appointed as Assistant Teacher in C. T. Grade since he was not trained. It may also be submitted that in C. T. Grade appointment of teachers are not made against any subject. General appointment of teachers are made to teach all the subjects." The aforesaid averment has not been denied by the petitioner either specifically or by implication. The reply of the aforesaid paragraph is contained in para 5 of the rejoinder-affidavit of the petitioner which is as below:- "That the contents of paragraph no. 4 of the counter-affidavit are again wholly misleading as well as misconceived. The petitioner was fully qualified for being appointed as Art Teacher even in L. T. Grade. Subject-wise appointments are made in every date according to the need of the Institution." If the assertion noticed above is correct the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to L. T. Grade could not be considered and no relief can be granted to him by this Court. 9. FOR what has been said above, the petition is devoid of substance and deserves to be dismissed. 10. 9. FOR what has been said above, the petition is devoid of substance and deserves to be dismissed. 10. THE petition having already been dismissed no fresh order in this regard is called for. Petition dismissed.