JUDGMENT : S.R. SINGH, J. 1. The dispute in the instant writ petition relates to appointment on the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit in Santan Dharm Inter College Sadar, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the College). The vacancy on the post in question admittedly occurred upon retirement of the incumbent Sri Shiv Charan Sharma on 30-6-1990. The Petitioner, a permanent teacher in L.T. Grade in the college applied for appointment in the said vacancy, but in negation of his claim the Committee of management seems to have appointed Sri Bhagwan Devo Thakur, 4th Respondent on 23rd July, 1990 on ad hoc basis. The ground on which the Petitioner's claim for appointment to the said post atleast on ad hoc basis was a negated by the committee of management, was that he had not completed five years substantive service in L.T. Grade. It is not disputed before me that the Petitioner, though initially appointed in C.T. Grade, was given L.T. Grade with effect from 1-1-1986 and he is in continuous service since then. The first application that was given by the Petitioner for appointment on the post in question is dated 12-7-1990 annexed as Annexure-III to the writ petition. On 1-2-1991 he seems to have again pressed his claim for appointment on the ground that he had completed five years continuous service in L.T. Grade on 1-1-1991. This application of the Petitioner too did not find any favourable response from the committee of management and aggrieved by its inaction to redress his grievances, the Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 to promote him from LT. Grade to Lecturer Grade and further directing the District Inspector of Schools not to give approval to the direct appointment of the 4th Respondent on the post in question. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th Respondent opposing the writ petition basically on the ground that the Petitioner having not completed five years continuous service in L.T. Grade on the date of occurrence of the vacancy i.e. 30-6-1990, was not qualified for promotion and therefore, the committee of management was free to make ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment u/s 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982. 3. 3. I have heard Sri A.N. Bhargava, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Vivek Chaudhary appearing for the Respondent No. 4. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that even in case of ad hoc appointment u/s 18 of the aforesaid Act, the management is obliged to first fill a particular vacancy in the' Lecturer grade by promotion from amongst the qualified teachers working in the institution in L.T. Grade. He has placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Charu Chandra Tiwari v. District Inspector of Schools Deoria, 1990 UP LB EC 160, wherein it was held that there appears no rationale to exclude the method of filing the vacancies in accordance with Clause IV of U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 from Section 18 of the Act. The Division Bench has clearly held in Charu Chandra's case (supra) that even in case of ad hoc appointment u/s 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act, the management is obliged to follow the procedure contemplated by the first Removal of Difficulties Order 1981 which visualises that recourse to direct recruitment may be had only if qualified teachers are not available for filling the post by way of promotion. 4. Sri Vivek Chaudhary contended before me that both in accordance with Regulation 6(1) of Chapter II of the Regulations made under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Rule 9 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules 1983, five years continuous service in L.T. Grade on the date of occurrence of the vacancy, is a pre-requisite condition for promotion to Lecturer Grade and the Petitioner, on admitted facts, was not possessed of this pre--requisite condition on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. Thus according to Sri Vivek Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the 4th Respondent, the Petitioner cannot be said to be qualified for promotion and the management was justified in filling the vacancy by direct recruitment in absence of there being any other qualified teacher in the L.T. Grade. This contention of Sri Chaudhary, though apparently attractive, is not sustainable in law. Thus according to Sri Vivek Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the 4th Respondent, the Petitioner cannot be said to be qualified for promotion and the management was justified in filling the vacancy by direct recruitment in absence of there being any other qualified teacher in the L.T. Grade. This contention of Sri Chaudhary, though apparently attractive, is not sustainable in law. As noticed above, the Division Bench in Charu Chandra's case (supra) has held that the method visualised by the U.P. Secondary Education Service (Removal of Difficulties), Order 1981 is to be followed even in case of appointment u/s 18 of the Act. A perusal of Clause 6 of the said Removal of Difficulties Order makes the intention of the legislature clear that for the purpose of ad hoc promotion it is not at all necessary that the teachers sought to be promoted must have continuous substantive service of five years in the grade, just below the grade to which promotion is sought to be made. The requirement of five years continuous service as visualised in Regulation 6(1) of Chapter II of the Regulations and/or Rule 9 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1983, is a requirement of eligibility for regular promotion and not of essential qualifications, which are prescribed in appendix to Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the regulations. Admittedly the Petitioner holds a degree of Master Arts in Sanskrit and on that basis he is possessed of requisite qualifications for the post of lecturer in Sanskrit as prescribed in Appendix 'A' to Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the regulations. So far as the question of eligibility is concerned, that appears to have been done away with in case of ad hoc promotion to be made u/s 18 of the Act read with the provisions contained in U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) order, 1981. Clause 6 of the said Removal of Difficulties Order being relevant for the purposes of the case is being quoted below: 6. Clause 6 of the said Removal of Difficulties Order being relevant for the purposes of the case is being quoted below: 6. Eligibility for Appointment.- Every appointment of a teacher under paragraph 4 or 5 shall be subject to the following conditions, namely: (a) The candidate sought to be appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment must fulfil the essential qualifications laid down in appendix-A referred to in the Regulation (1) of Chapter II of the Regulations made under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921: (b) The candidate sought to be appointed by direct recruitment under paragraph 5 shall not be related to any member of the committee of management in the manner indicated in schedule II to the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. (c) The candidate sought to be appointed by promotion under paragraph 4 must have been serving the institution in substantive capacity from before the date of commencement of this Order. 5. A perusal of paragraph 6 (c) of the aforesaid Removal of Difficulties Order makes it abundantly clear that apart from the requisite qualifications as laid down in Appendix A referred to in Regulation (1) of Chapter II of the Regulations made under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 what is essential for promotion, is not continuous substantive service of five years in the lower grade but service in the institution in substantive capacity from before the date of commencement of the said Removal of Difficulties Order. The Petitioner is admittedly serving in the institution in substantive capacity since July, 1969, when he was appointed initially as assistant teacher in C.T. Grade. It is true that he was given LT. Grade for the first time with effect from 1-1-1986, but that does not matter so far as his service in the institution in substantive capacity is concerned. In view of this the Petitioner was certainly entitled to be promoted to the post in question provided that there was no other qualified teacher in L.T. Grade senior to him in the college. 6. In view of this the Petitioner was certainly entitled to be promoted to the post in question provided that there was no other qualified teacher in L.T. Grade senior to him in the college. 6. Sri Vivek Chaudhary, placing reliance on a decision of learned Single Judge (Hon. Om Prakash, J.) in Y.N. Singh v. DIOS 1991 AWC 562 , has contended before me that it is the senior most teacher irrespective of his qualifications, who is to be considered for appointment and not the Petitioner, who is much lower in order of seniority than a number of other teachers in L.T. Grade. This contention of Sri Vivek Chaudhari is misconceived and does not find support from the authority being relied upon by him. It is not seniority alone which is relevant for the purposes of appointment by promotion u/s 18 of the Act read with the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, but qualifications as laid down in appendix-A referred to in Regulation (1) of Chapter II of the Regulations, made under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 are also relevant in view of paragraph 6 of the aforesaid Removal of Difficulties Order which prescribes conditions subject to which alone appointment of a teacher under paragraph 4 or 5 is to be made. Accordingly I find no force in the contention of Sri Vivek Chaudhary. If any of the teacher senior to the Petitioner in L.T. Grade is possessed of requisite qualification as laid down in regulations then of course such teacher has to be offered appointment by promotion first and it is only upon his refusal that a qualified teacher next in order of seniority may be considered. But so long as qualified teacher is available for promotion, appointment on the post in question by direct recruitment is illegal and void. 7. In view of the above discussion the direct appointment of the 4th Respondent is illegal and void and cannot be sustained and is to be quashed, accordingly, without prejudice to his claim for salary and other emoluments for such period as he has worked up to date. Accordingly the petition succeeds and is allowed. Ad (sic) appointment of the 4th Respondent is quashed. Accordingly the petition succeeds and is allowed. Ad (sic) appointment of the 4th Respondent is quashed. The committee of management of the College is directed to fill up the post by promotion of the senior most qualified L.T. Grade teacher working in the institution in substantive capacity within a fortnight from the date of production of a certified copy of the this order and the District Inspector of Schools is also directed to see that the financial sanction under Regulation 19 of Chapter II of the regulations made under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is accorded/given only to an appointment/promotion made in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Act read with the provisions of Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. 8. I make no order as to costs.