JUDGMENT M. C. Agarwal, J. 1. THESE are writ petitions by two teachers employed in Ram Pyari Arya Kannaya Inter College, Chandausi, District Moradabad. Since they raise identical disputes they were linked together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. IN writ petition No. 9143 of 1988, the petitioner is Smt. Ranjana Agarwal. The petitioner of writ petition no. 6256 of 1989 is respondent no. 4 in this writ petition and the Regional Inspectors of Girls Schools, Moradabad, U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad and the Committee of Management of the aforesaid college are respondents 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Her case is that she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the said college in L. T. Grade w.e.f. 20th September, 1974 on substantive basis against a clear vacancy. Smt. Sushila Shastri, respondent no. 4 was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in the college in C. T. Grade and she was promoted to the L. T. Grade w.e.f. 8th July 1976. Thus, according to this petitioner she is senior to the respondent Smt. Sushila Shastri. One Smt. Bina Saxena was a permanent lecturer in Sanskrit in the said college. She resigned from service w.ef 20-5-1978. According to petitioner Smt. Ranjana Agarwal, that vacancy has not been filled so far. IN September, 1987, the Committee of Management determined and intimated the vacancy to the second respondent i. e. the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission through the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools. According to the Committee of Management the aforesaid vacancy arose as a result of resignation of Smt. Bina Saxena and was to be filled up by promotion. IN the said Communication to the respondent no. 2 Smt. Ranjana Agarwal was shown as junior to Smt. Sushila Shastri and the commission is said to have raised objection enquiring how Smt. Ranjana Agarwal was shown as junior to Smt. Sushila Shastri. The Committee of Management is said to have repeated its stand that Smt. Sushila Shastri was senior to the petitioner. 2 Smt. Ranjana Agarwal was shown as junior to Smt. Sushila Shastri and the commission is said to have raised objection enquiring how Smt. Ranjana Agarwal was shown as junior to Smt. Sushila Shastri. The Committee of Management is said to have repeated its stand that Smt. Sushila Shastri was senior to the petitioner. Vide letter dated 19th December 1987 the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission returned the service records of the petitioner and the respondent no 4 stating that none of them had completed five years continuous service in the L. T. Grade on 20-5-1978 and, therefore, they were not eligible for promotion against the aforesaid vacancy (A copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition). According to petitioner Smt. Ranjana Agarwal, the date of occurrence of the vacancy in terms of rule 9 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 framed under the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act. 1982 means the date on which the Management determines tie vacancy under rule 4 of the said rules and not the dated 20-5-1978 on which Smt. Bina Saxena had resigned from her post and, therefore, according to her the Commission was in error in requiring five years continuous service as on 20-5-1978 for the petitioner's eligibility for promotion. According to her the Committee of Management determined the vacancy for the first time in September, 1986 and on that date the petitioner had put in more than five years of continuous service. It is contended that the petitioner is senior to the respondent No. 4 because the latter's appointment was approved by the R.I.G.S. on 8-7-1976 and was not effective from 25th July, 1973. R.I.G.S. is alleged to have erred in giving retrospective effect to the appointment of the respondent No. 4 in the L. T. Grade. On these averments the petitioner seeks cancellation of the letter of the respondent no. 2 dated 19th December, 1987 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition by which the Commission had taken the stand that the two teachers aforesaid having not completed rive years continuous service on 20-5-1978 were not eligible for promotion. On these averments the petitioner seeks cancellation of the letter of the respondent no. 2 dated 19th December, 1987 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition by which the Commission had taken the stand that the two teachers aforesaid having not completed rive years continuous service on 20-5-1978 were not eligible for promotion. The petitioner also seeks cancellation of a letter dated Ist March, 1987 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) by which the R.I.G.S. had stated that the appointment of the respondent No. 4 Smt. Sushila Shastri in the L.T. Grade was effective from 22nd July 1973, the date on which the Managing 'Committee passed a resolution appointing her in the said grade. A further prayer made in this petition is that respondents 1 and 3 be directed to forward the name of the petitioner for consideration for promotion to the post of lecturer in Sanskrit. The institution, respondent No. 3 has not put in appearance and no counter affidavit has been filed on its behalf. 3. ON behalf of respondent No. 2 i. e. U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission, it has been asserted in the counter affidavit, sworn by its Deputy Secretary Sri Chandra Dutt Pandey that under the concerned rule-9 a teacher for becoming eligible for promotion must have put in at least five years continuous service as a teacher on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. According to it the vacancy occurred on 20-5-1978 and on that date none of the two teachers had completed five years service in the L. T. Grade to become eligible for promotion to the post of a lecturer. It controverts the petitioner's stand that the period of five years has to be counted on the date when the Committee of Management determines to fill the vacancy by promotion. 4. ON behalf of respondent no. 1, Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools (R. I. G. S) one Vijay Narain Sharma has sworn the counter affidavit. As the affidavit states he is posted as Junior Clerk at the Government Girir Inter College, Amroha. Its case is that the appointment of Smt. Sushila Shastri was effective from 22nd July 1973 while the petitioner Smt. Ranjana Agarwal was appointed in the L. T. Grade w. e. f. 20-9-1974 and hence Smt. Sushila Shastri was rightly treated as senior to this petitioner. Its case is that the appointment of Smt. Sushila Shastri was effective from 22nd July 1973 while the petitioner Smt. Ranjana Agarwal was appointed in the L. T. Grade w. e. f. 20-9-1974 and hence Smt. Sushila Shastri was rightly treated as senior to this petitioner. It is stated that the Commission did raise certain objections vide its letter dated 17-6-1987 about the inter-se seniority of the petitioner and respondent no. 4, but ultimately the Commission through its letter dated 24th February, 1988 directed that the respondent No. 4 being senior to the petitioner should be offered the promotion on the post of lecture in Sanskrit. According to the R.I.G.S. respondent No. 4 was rightly appointed to the post of a lecturer in Sanskrit (A copy of the alleged letter dated 24th February, 1988 is claimed to have been annexed as Annexure-C-1 to this counter affidavit). Smt. Sushila Shastri, respondent no. 4 has also filed a counter affidavit. As stated above, she has also filed the another writ petition No. 6256 of 1989 and, therefore, to avoid repetition, her case as set up in the writ petition will be stated hereafter as the facts pleaded in the counter affidavit are more or less the game. 5. THE case of Smt. Sushila Shastri, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6256 of 1989 in which Smt. Ranjana Agarwal aforesaid is respondent no. 4, U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission, R.I.G.S., Moradabad and Committee of Management, Ram Pyari Arya Kanya Intermediate College, Chandausi are respondents 1, 2 and 3 respectively, is that she is M. A. in Sanskrit and is qualified in Sahitya Ratan (Sanskrit) and is working as lecturer in Sanskrit in the aforesaid educational institution since 3rd September, 1978. Prior to that she was working in the same institution in the L. T. Grade for five years since 22nd July 1973. Initially in 1967, she was appointed in the aforesaid college as a Sanskrit teacher for High School classes in C. T. Grade and on 22-7-1973 was appointed in the L.T. Grade in the same college by the Committee of Management. Her appointment was communicated to the R.I.G.S. vide letter dated 25th July, 1973 and the approval of the R.I.G.S. was sought for the said appointment (A copy of the said letter dated 25th July 1973 has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition). Her appointment was communicated to the R.I.G.S. vide letter dated 25th July, 1973 and the approval of the R.I.G.S. was sought for the said appointment (A copy of the said letter dated 25th July 1973 has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition). It is alleged that the R.I.G.S. referred the matter to the Director of Education and the Director of Education on 25 th September, 1974 informed the R.I.G.S. to approve the selection of the petitioner at her own level. Ultimately on 8th June, 1976 the R.I.G.S. approved the said resolution of the Selection Committee dated 22nd July, 1973 (A copy of the letter dated 8th June 1976 has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition). It is alleged that the Committee of Management mis-interpreted the letter dated 8th June, 1976 issued by the R I.G.S. by assuming that the approval of the petitioner's appointment in the L. T. Grade was effective from 8-6-1976 instead of 22-7-1973. THE petitioner made a representation to the R.I.G.S. as well as to the "Deputy Director of Education and ultimately vide letter dated Ist March, 1988 (copy annexute-4 to the writ petition), R.I.G.S. clarified that the approval would be effective from 22-7-1973. It is averred that on 20-5-1978 Smt. Bina Saxena a teacher in Sanskrit in the aforesaid college resigned and when the college re-opened after the summer vacation on 8-7-1978. the petitioner started working as a lecturer in place of Smt. Bina Saxena. It was on 16th July, 1978 that the Committee of Management accepted the resignation of Smt. Bina Saxena (A copy of the resolution of the Committee of Management has been annexed as annexure- 7 to the writ petition). On 3rd September, 1978 the Committee of Management, in order to fill the aforesaid vacancy caused by resignation of Smt. Bina Saxena held a meeting and passed a resolution appointing the petitioner to the said post by promotion. According to her on the date when the Management decided to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Smt. Bina Saxena, she had already put in five years continuous service and, therefore in terms of regulation 6 of the Regulation framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, she was qualified for appointment by promotion to (the said, post. THE Management again sought the approval of the R.I.G.S. to this appointment of the petitioner by letter dated 5th September 1978. However, the R.I.G.S. did not approve her appointment and communicated the non approval by letter dated 15*5-1979. THE stand taken by the R.I.G.S. was that the petitioner's (Sushila Shastri) appointment in the L. T. Grade was approved only on 8-6-1976 and that there was no vacancy within 40 percent quota which could be filled by promotion. It is contended that in terms of regulation 6 aforesaid, it was mandatory on the part of the R.I.G.S. to communicate her decision regarding approval within three weeks failing which the R.I.G.S. would be deemed to have approved the appointment. THE petitioner's case is that though she was working as a lecturer in Sanskrit form 7th July 1978, she was appointed as a permanent lecturer of Sanskrit w.e.f. 3-9-1978 and is continuously working as such. Against the communication dated 15-5-1979 issued by the R.I.G.S. declining to approve the petitioner's appointment as a lecturer, the Management is said to have made a representation do the Director of Education vide letter dated 2nd August, 1985. Letters dated 24th October, 1985 and 2nd September, 1986 was also addressed to the R.I.G.S. on this subject. In the meantime the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 was enacted. THE said Act was to apply to appointments to be made after 10th July, 1981. According to the petitioner, she had already been appointed to the aforesaid post as far back as the 3rd September, 1978, and her appointment was not affected by the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder It is alleged that the R.I.G.S. referred the matter to the Commission and the Commission vide letter dated 31st December, 1986 informed the Committee of Management of the institution to continue the appointment of the petitioner as a lecturer in Sanskrit till final approval by the Commission (A copy of the Commission's letter has been annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition). It is alleged that vide letter dated 24th February, 1988 (Copy Annexure-12 to the writ petition) the Director of Education directed the R.I.O.S. to accord necessary approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a lecturer in Sanskrit. It is alleged that vide letter dated 24th February, 1988 (Copy Annexure-12 to the writ petition) the Director of Education directed the R.I.O.S. to accord necessary approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a lecturer in Sanskrit. It is alleged that Smt. Ranjana Agarwal who has also set up her claim for appointment as a lecturer In Sanskrit was M. A. in Economics and was appointed as a lecturer in Economics in the L. T. Grade on 20-9-1974. According to her, it was in the year, 1983 that Smt. Ranjana Agarwal passed her M. A. examination in Sanskrit as a private candidate from Rohilkhand University. It may be stated here itself that in her counter affidavit Smt. Ranajana Agarwal has not denied the allegation that she passed M. A. examination in Sanskrit in the year, 1983 and not prior thereto. According to petitioner Smt. Sushila Shastri (see paragraph 13-A) Smt. Ranjana Agarwal was not qualified to teach Sanskrit to Intermediate Classes during 1978 and she passed her M. A. examination in Sanskrit only in the year 1983. This averment too has not been controverted by Smt. Ranjana Agarwal in her counter affidavit. It is alleged that the action of the Commission in returning the records of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 was without consideration of the relevant facts. Then the petitioner Smt. Sushila Shastri has referred to the writ petition filed by Smt. Ranjana Agarwal being writ petition No. 9143 of 1981. It is alleged that she has filed that writ petition concealing the relevant facts. It is contended that the respondents are not approving appointment of the petitioner w.e.f. 3rd September, 1978 her salary in the lecturer's grade has been withheld illegally. On these pleadings, Smt. Sushila Sbastri has prayed for a direction to the respondents 1. 2 and 3 to confirm her promotion to the post of lecturer in Sanskrit w.e.f. 3rd September, 1978 and to pay her the entire arrears of her salary including revised pay scale as admissible to a lecturer in Sanskrit. It is further prayed that respondents 2 and 1 be directed to make regular payment of salary to the petitioner. Lastly, it is prayed that special compensatory costs be awarded against the respondents. 6. IN this writ petition filed by Smt. Sushila Shastri only respondent No. 4 Smt. Ranjana Agarwal has filed a counter affidavit. It is further prayed that respondents 2 and 1 be directed to make regular payment of salary to the petitioner. Lastly, it is prayed that special compensatory costs be awarded against the respondents. 6. IN this writ petition filed by Smt. Sushila Shastri only respondent No. 4 Smt. Ranjana Agarwal has filed a counter affidavit. The other respondents did not file any counter affidavit. Smt. Ranjana Agarwal in her counter affidavit has only reiterated Iter case, as set up in writ petition No. 9143 of 1988 and it is not necessary to state the same again here. The material omission have already been referred earlier. From the above narration of facts, it is clear that as far as Smt. Ranjan Agarwal is concerned, her case is based on the assertion that the appointment of Smt. Sushila Shastri in the vacancy caused on the retirement of Smt. Bina Saxena has not been validly made and, therefore, she is entitled to be considered for appointment to that post by promotion. She has also claimed that she is senior to Sunt. Sushial Shastri because the latter's appointment was approved by the R.I.G.S as late as on 8th July 1976. Therefore, we have to revert to the writ petition of Smt, Sushila Shastri to find out whether her appointment has been validly made. 7. WE may first take up the issue whether the appointment of Smt. Sushila Shastri in the L. T. grade was effective from the date on which she was appointed in that grade by the Managing Committee, that is on 22nd July 1973. As already stated, the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools has approved her appointment by letter dated 8th July 1976, and so far as the Regional Inspectress of Girls schools and the commission are concerned, it is not their case that Smt. Sushila Shastri will be deemed to have been appointed only from the date on which her appointment was actually approved. No rule has been brought to my notice which may show that a teacher will he appointed only after the prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools. Sub regulation (5) of regulation 6 of the Regulations merely says that within a week of the selection of any teacher for appointment, the Committee of Management shall forward the proposal for the concurrence of the Inspector. Sub regulation (5) of regulation 6 of the Regulations merely says that within a week of the selection of any teacher for appointment, the Committee of Management shall forward the proposal for the concurrence of the Inspector. Sub regulation (6) of Regulation 6 then says that within three weeks from date of receipt of the proposal under clause (5), the Inspector shall communicate his decision thereon to the Manager failing which the Inspector shall be deemed to have given his concurrence to the resolution passed by the Committee of Management. Sub clause (7) of Regulation 6 then says that where the Committee of Management feels aggrieved from the decision of the Inspector, it may within two weeks from (the date of communication of such decision to the Manager, make a representation against it to the Regional Deputy Director of Education whose decision in the matter shall be final. 8. FROM these Regulations, it cannot be inferred that till the receipt of the concurrence of the Inspector, an appointment cannot at all be made. Sub section (10) of Section 16 E of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 provides that where the Director is satisfied that any person has been appointed as a teacher in contravention of the provisions of the Act, the Director may, after affording an opportunity of being heard to such person, cancel such appointment and pass such consequential order, as may be necessary. This also indicates that it is permissible to appoint a person in anticipation of the approval of the Inspector. Therefore, when the Inspector approves the appointment, he has to do it from the date of actual appointment and not from any later date. In the present case, as the letters issued by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools show that she never mentioned any other date as the date from which the appointment of Smt. Sushila Shastri was to be deemed to be approved. She merely communicated her approval without mentioning any date from which it was to be effective. Therefore,, the appointment stood approved from the date on which it was made that is, 22nd July 1978. The claim of Smt. Ranjana Agarwal, that the appointment would be effective from 8th July, 1976, and that she was senior to her has, therefore, no force. 9. Therefore,, the appointment stood approved from the date on which it was made that is, 22nd July 1978. The claim of Smt. Ranjana Agarwal, that the appointment would be effective from 8th July, 1976, and that she was senior to her has, therefore, no force. 9. NOW, we come to the appointment of Smt. Sushila Shastri in the vacancy caused by the resignation of Smt. Bina Saxena, Smt. Bina Saxena resigned on 20th May 1978. She was a permanent lecturer and the resignation could not take effect immediately. It had to be accepted by the employer, i.e. the Committee of Management of the institution. In her writ petition, Smt. Sushila Shastri has annexed copies of the resolutions dated 7th July 1978, and 16th July, 1978, as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. On 7th July, 1978, the Committee of Management passed a resolution accepting the resignation with the condition that Smt. Bina Saxena would pay to the management an amount equal to three months' salary. The resolution further states that the resignation does not mention any date. It appears that the condition regarding payment of three months' salary was not acceptable to Smt Bina Saxena and she sought waiver of that condition and on 16th July, 1978, the Committee of Management passed another resolution amending the earlier resolution and waiving the demand of three months' salary. Therefore, the appointment of Smt. Bina Saxena effectively came to an end only on 16th July, 1978, and not on 20th May 1978, on which date she submitted her resignation without mentioning any date from which it was to become effective. 10. THE next question arising for determination is whether the post falling vacant on the resignation, of Smt. Bina Saxena was to be filled by promotion. Clause 5 of the regulations deals with the matter. Sub-clause (1) thereof says that every vacancy in the post of a teacher in a recognised institution shall, except as otherwise provided in clause (2), be filled by direct recruitment- Sub-clause (2) (a) then gays that forty percent of the total number of the sanctioned posts in the lecturer's grade or in the L.' T. Grade shall only be filled by promotion from amongst the teachers working in the institution in the L. T. Grade and the C. T. Grade respectively and promotions shall be made subject to availability and eligibility of such teachers for promotion. Regulation 6 (1) reads as under :- "6 (1) Where any vacancy in the lecturer's grade or in the L. T. Grade as determined under regulation 5, is to be filled by promotion, all teachers working in the L. T, Grade, as the Base 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's grade or in the L. T. Grade is required." The case of Smt. Sushila Shastri is that the vacancy caused by the resignation of Smt. Bina Saxena was within the forty per cent quota for promotion. This has been denied by Smt. Ranjana Agarwal in her counter affidavit in the writ petition of Smt. Sushila Shastri. So far as the other respondents are concerned, they have not denied Smt. Sushila Shastri's averment. Even the denial by Smt. Ranjana Agarwal is contradictory to her own stand in her writ petition in which she claims appointment to the said post by promotion. If this vacancy was not within the forty per cent quota, even Smt. Ranjana Agarwal could not be appointed to the same by promotion. Her denial is bald and neither in the counter affidavit nor at the arguments before me, it was explained how the forty per cent quota stood already filled up. In the absence of any denial try the Committee of Management and the Regional Inspectress of Girls schools,, the contention of Smt. Sushila Shastri has to be accepted and I hold that the vacancy that occurred on the resignation of Smt. Bina Saxena was within the forty percent quota reserved for appointments by promotion. 11. IT is now to be seen as to when the vacancy should be deemed to have occurred for the purposes of Regulation 6, reproduced above, because a teacher has to be in continuous service for five years to be eligible for promotion. The contention of Smt., Sushila Shastri is that for purposes of Regulation 6, the vacancy should be deemed to have occurred on the date when the Committee of Management initiated the process to fill up that vacancy. The contention of Smt., Sushila Shastri is that for purposes of Regulation 6, the vacancy should be deemed to have occurred on the date when the Committee of Management initiated the process to fill up that vacancy. That is also the contention of Smt. Ranjana Agarwal, who has placed reliance on Rule 9 of the U P Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 which is identical to Regulation 6, referred to above, and her contention is that the vacancy should be deemed to have occurred when the Committee of Management determined the vacancy for notification to the Commission under Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules. Thus, so far as these contesting teachers are concerned, none of them has pleaded that the period of five years continuous service should have been completed on or before the date when the vacancy actually occurred in physical terms. Rule 9 (1) of the aforesaid rules reads as under : "9. Procedure for appointment, by promotion- (1) Where any vacancy is to lie 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 services shall be considered for promotion to the Lecturer or L. T. Grade, as the case may be, without their having applied for the same. 12. IT is to be seen that the two Rules are identical and, therefore, Smt. Ranjana Agarwal also interprets the; words 'on the date of occurrence of the vacancy' in Regulation 6 in the same manner in which it has been done by Smt. Sushila Shastri. As a matter of fact, in reply to paragraph 7 (b) of the writ petition of Smt. Sushila Shastri in which it was alleged that she had put in five years service on 3rd September, 1978. and had qualified for promotion as Lecturer in accordance with Regulation 6, Smt. Ranjana Agarwal in her counter affidavit (See paragraph 6) has not controverted this aspect of the matter and has merely stated that the concerned post was not within the forty percent quota. As regards the other respondents, they have not controverted this interpretation and even the learned Standing Counsel did not contend that the vacancy for purposes of Regulation 6 aforesaid should be deemed to have occurred on 20th May, 1978, when Smt, Bina Saxena tendered her resignation. As regards the other respondents, they have not controverted this interpretation and even the learned Standing Counsel did not contend that the vacancy for purposes of Regulation 6 aforesaid should be deemed to have occurred on 20th May, 1978, when Smt, Bina Saxena tendered her resignation. The occurrence of a vacancy can have different connotations in different context. For example, when Smt. Bina Saxena tendered her resignation on 20th May, 1978, a vacancy in physical terms can be said to have occurred if she had decided not to continue with the job and had stopped teaching her classes but a contract of service did not come to an end by merely tendering her resignation and it came to an end on 16th July, 1978, when her resignation was finally accepted. Therefore, in the ordinary legal sense, the vacancy occurred on 16th July, 1978. Then, a vacancy may be filled by appointing another person in place of the outgoing one or the employer may decide to absolish the post or to assign the duties of the outgoing employee to one or more of the existing employees. If the employer, particularly a public institution like a recognised college decides to fill the post, the prospective candidates have a legitimate expectation of being appointed to the post. From their angle, the vacancy would be deemed to arise when the Management decides to fill up that vacancy and invites eligible candidate to apply for the job. Regulation 6 appears in a scheme of public appointments and, therefore, it has to be interpreted in a manner that sub serves the purpose and advances the scheme envisaged in the Regulations dealing with the appointment of teachers in public institutions In my view, therefore, in terms of Regulation 6, referred to above, a vacancy should be deemed to have occurred not on the date when there is a physical vacancy nor on the date when the vacancy legally arises by final termination of the contract with the erstwhile employer. The vacancy must be deemed to have occurred only when the management initiates the process of filling up the vacancy with the result that those who acquire the minimum qualifications for eligibility after the date of physical or legal vacancy are not debarred from consideration. The vacancy must be deemed to have occurred only when the management initiates the process of filling up the vacancy with the result that those who acquire the minimum qualifications for eligibility after the date of physical or legal vacancy are not debarred from consideration. Any other interpretation would bring about a result which will be highly prejudicial to those who are already in service and expect promotion as such prejudicial and unjust results must be avoided. I, therefore, hold that for the purposes of Regulation 6 aforesaid, the vacancy would be deemed to arise not on 20th May 1978, or on 16th July, 1978, but on 3rd September, 1978, when the Management decided to fill up the vacancy by promotion and, consequently, passed a resolution appointing Smt Sushila Shastri to (the aforesaid post. Admittedly, on 3rd September, 1978, Smt. Sushila Shastri had already put in five years continous service in the L. T. Grade with effect from 22nd July 1973 She was already an M. A in Sanskrit and had all the qualifications entitling her to be promoted to the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit that fell vacant on the resignation of Smt. Bina Sakena. Her appointment to that post by the Committee of Management, therefore, was valid and it cannot be found fault with. 13. IT is important to remember here that on 3rd September, 1978, Smt. Ranjana Agarwal had neither completed five years service in the L. T. Grade nor she had the minimum academic qualifications for appointment to the post of a lecturer in Sanskrit. She was an M.A. in Economics and was working as a lecturer in that subject. It was only in 1983 that she passed her M.A. Examination in SanskrIT and, therefore, on 3rd September, 1978, she was nowhere in the field for consideration. 14. ACCORDING to Smt. Sushila Shastri, on 5th September, 1978, the Committee of Management sought the approval of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Bareilly. The latter did not respond within three weeks, as was required by Regulation 6 (6) and therefore, the appointment would be deemed to have been approved. 14. ACCORDING to Smt. Sushila Shastri, on 5th September, 1978, the Committee of Management sought the approval of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Bareilly. The latter did not respond within three weeks, as was required by Regulation 6 (6) and therefore, the appointment would be deemed to have been approved. As stated in paragraph 7 (c) of the writ petition of Smt Sushila Shastri, it was about eight months later that vide letter dated 15th May, 1979, (Copy Annexure 9') that the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools stated that it was not possible to consider the approval of the appointment of Smt. Sushila Shastri because her appointment in the L.T. grade was approved vide letter dated 8th August, 1976, and, therefore, she had not completed five years of regular service. Subsequently, the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools has stated that the aforesaid appointment stands approved from 22ud July, 1973, and 'by another letter dated 24th February, 1988, the Deputy Director of Education informed the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools that since the appointment of Smt. Sushila Shastri in the L. T. Grade stood approved from 25th July, 1973, she had completed five years of service on 3rd September, 1978. This letter clearly shows that the period of five years continuous service has to be seen on 3rd September 1978, when the vacancy was sought to be filled and not on any earlier date. Thus, there was no justification for the Regional Inspectrees of Girls Schools not to approve the appointment of Smt Sushiia Shastri with effect from 3rd September, 1978, and as the same was not dis-approved within the period provided in Regulation 6 (6), the appointment stood approved. The post thus having been filled up on 3rd September, 1978, the question of that post being filled by the U. P. education Services Commission did note arise, as the U. P. Act no. 5 of 1982 was not in force on the relevant date. As already stated, the respondent Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools did not file any counter affidavit in the petition of Smt. Sushila Shastri meaning thereby that she was unable to justify (the conduct of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools in not formally approving the appointment and paying Smt. Sushila Shastri the emoluments that became due to her. 15. As already stated, the respondent Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools did not file any counter affidavit in the petition of Smt. Sushila Shastri meaning thereby that she was unable to justify (the conduct of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools in not formally approving the appointment and paying Smt. Sushila Shastri the emoluments that became due to her. 15. ALONG with the writ petition that was filed on 7rh April, 1989, Smt. Sushila Shastri had filed an application for interim relief. Seven months later, when the respondents that is the Committee of Management and the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, did no. file any counter affidavit, this Court vide order dated 6th November 1989, directed the respondent no, 1, the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, to procure necessary papers and pay the salary to the petitioner from Ist December, 1989, till further orders of the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner informed that since then she has been regularly getting her pay. In this petition, Smt. Sushila Shastri has prayed for examplary costs as well as interest, 16. IN view of the circumstances, mentioned above, I am of the view that the dues of Smt. Sushila Shastri have been unduly withheld because of the unreasonable stand of the education authorities and, therefore, she must be compensated by grant of interest. I do not consider it necessary to burden the State further by any examplary costs. In view of the above discussions. Writ Petition No. 9143 of 1988 filed by Smt. Ranjana Agarwal is dismissed with costs to respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. 17. WRIT Petition No. 8256 of 1989 filed by Smt. Sushila Shastri is allowed, It is declared that she was legally appointed as a lecturer in Sanskrit in Ram Pyari Arya Kanya Intermediate College, Chandausi, with effect from 3rd September, 1978, and her appointment stood approved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools and she is entitled to all the emoluments admissible to a lecturer with effect from 3rd September, 1978. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed to pay the petitioner Smt. Sushila Shastri all admissible dues with effect from 3rd September, 1978 within a period of three months from today. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed to pay the petitioner Smt. Sushila Shastri all admissible dues with effect from 3rd September, 1978 within a period of three months from today. The respondent no 2 is also directed to pay interest on the amount of arrears due up to 30 November, 1989, at the rate of 12 percent per annum compounded yearly with effect from 1st December, 1989, till the date of actual payment which shall also be paid within a period of three months The institution respondent no. 3 shall not be burdened with the liability of interest. The respondent no. 2 shall pay the costs of this writ petition to the petitioner. Petition allowed.