JUDGMENT Vijay Bahuguna, J. - By means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 4th of November, 1991, by means of which the respondent No. 4 has been appointed as an ad hoc Lecturer in History of the National Inter College, Sayadraja, Varanasi. The impugned order of the Deputy Director of Education was passed pursuant to the directions of this Court in writ petition No. Nil of 1989, Vijay Bahadur Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi and others, decided on 6th of December, 1989. This Court had directed the Deputy Director of Education to decide the representation made by the respondent No. 4 (petitioner in that writ petition) as had been earlier directed by this Court on 16-12-1988, after hearing the petitioner and the respondent No. 4. 2. The Deputy Director of Education after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 and after perusal of the relevant record came to the conclusion, that the respondent No. 4 was senior to the petitioner and that he possessed the requisite qualification on the date of vacancy and as such was eligible for being promoted as an ad hoc Lecturer in History and was entitled to continue as such till a regular selection was made by the Commission. 3. Section 18 (1) (a) and (b) of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 read as under : - 18. Ad hoc Teachers.(1) Where the management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and (a) the Commission has failed to recommend the name of any suitable candidate for being appointed as a teacher specified in the Schedule within one year from the date of such notification ; or (b) the post of such teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months, then the, management may appoint, by direct recruitment or promotion, a teacher on purely ad hoc basis from amongst the person possessing qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made there under.'* Rule 9 (1) of the U, P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 read as under : "9. Procedure for appointment by promotion. Procedure for appointment by promotion. (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 the 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 of eligibility. unless interrupted by removal, dismissal to a lower post......................." 4. The vacancy occurred due to the retirement of Sri Triveni Lal Srivastave, Lecturer in History, on 30th June, 1988. On the 16th of June. 5988 the vacancy was notified by the Committee of Management to the Commission and on 16th August, 1988 two months period expired and the post remained vacant as no candidate was recommended by the Commission for promotion on the said post. On the 12th of December, 1988, the Authorised Controller, exercising the powers of the Committee of Management, recommended the petitioner's name for promotion against the aforesaid post. On the 26th of December, 1988, the District Inspector of Schools approved the petitioner's ad hoc appointment as Lecturer in History and on 26th of December, 1988 itself an appointment letter was issued to the petitioner by the Authorised Controller and the petitioner on the same day took charge of the post and since then he is teaching as ad hoc Lecturer in History as no regular selection was made by the Commission 5. It is not disputed that the respondent No. 4 had appeared in the last paper of the M. A. History examination in April, 1988 and that his result was declared on the i8th of August, 1988. It is further not disputed that the respondent No. 4 was senior to the petitioner. His name was not recommended by the Authorised Controller on the ground that he did not possess the minimum qualifications, namely, M. A. in History, on the date when the vacancy occurred and as such he was not eligible for being promoted as an ad hoc Lecturer in History under the provisions of the Section 18 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act and Rule 9 (1) of the Rules. Before the approval of the petitioner's appointment the respondent No. 4 had made a representation on the 20th of August, 1988 to the District Inspector of Schools and subsequently to the Deputy Director of Education. On 20th of October, 1988, the Deputy Director of Education had passed an order that it had no authority to decide the controversy and thereafter this Court by its order dated 6th of December, 1988 had directed the Deputy Director of Education to decide the representation of the respondent No. 4 by a speaking order. 6. The controversy in short is as to whether the respondent No. 4 had the requisite qualifications to be considered for promotion on ad hoc basis under Rule 9 (1) of the Rules on the date when the vacancy occurred. The Deputy Director of Education has recorded a finding that the respondent No. 4 had appeared in his M. A. in History examination in April, 1988 which was prior to the occurrence of the vacancy and as his result was declared in 1988 it would be deemed that the respondent No. 4 had passed his M. A. in History examination in April, 1988. when the last paper was held. The view taken by the Deputy Director of Education is in conformity with the decision rendered in the case of Sangam Lal Pandey v. State of U. P. and others, 1990 (1) UPLBEC 706 ; Hari Nath Dtibey v. Deputy Director of Education, 1986 (1) UPLBEC 128 ; Hans Raj Singh v. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission, 1990 (2) UPLBEC 1127. Before the approval was granted by the District Inspector of Schools in December, 1988, the respondent No. 4 had passed the M. A. Examination in History in August, 1988 itself and being senior to the petitioner he was entitled in law to be promoted as ad hoc Lecturer in History till a regular selection was made by the Commission. 7. The findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Education are in accordance with law and call for no interference by this Court in the present proceedings. It will be open to the Commission to go into other aspects of the matter and take a decision on the appointment of a permanent teacher in History in the College. 7. The findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Education are in accordance with law and call for no interference by this Court in the present proceedings. It will be open to the Commission to go into other aspects of the matter and take a decision on the appointment of a permanent teacher in History in the College. Till a regular selection is made by the Commission, the respondent No. 4 shall work as an ad hoc Lecturer in History in the College. However, the petitioner will be entitled to his salary as an ad hoc Lecturer in History till the date of pronouncement of this judgment. 8. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.