SUDHIR NARAIN, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 1 to accord approval of ad hoc appointment of the petitioner as L. T. grade teacher in Chaubisa Kanya Inter College, Mohana, district Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as the institution) and not to compel the institution to fill up the post by promotion. 2. The facts in brief are that the institution was running a Junior High School. It was upgraded to High School on 30th June, 1993. On upgradation of the institution as High School, Regional Inspectress of Girls School, 1st Region, Meerut, respondent No. 1, recommended to the Director of Education for creation of one post of Principal, two posts of L. T. grade teachers, eight posts of C. T. grade teachers and four posts of class IV emplo yees. The Director of Education granted approval on 6th April, 1994, of one post of principal and two posts of L. T. grade teachers. These two posts were to be filled up in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (Act No. 5 of 1982 ). After the order of creation of posts, the Manager of the institution on 3-6- 1984 issued an agenda for the meeting of the Committee of Management and in its meeting on 5-8- 1984 passed a resolution for promoting Smt. Santosh Yadav and Phoolmati Yadav as L. T. grade teachers. The papers for approval of their promotion were sent to the respondent No. 1 who accorded approval vide order dated 3-10-1984. Smt. Jai Shree respondent No. 3 made representa tion against such approval. The respondent No. 1, however, reaffirmed the order of approval on 19-12-1984. Respondent No. 3 filed writ petition No. 109 of 1985 against these orders in this Court. The writ petition was admitted but the stay application was finally rejected on August 25, 1987. 3. After filing of the writ petition subsequent developments took place. One Smt. Savitri Yadav was promoted to post of Principal when the post of Principal was created by Director of Education on 6-4- 1984. On her promotion, the post of L. T. grade teacher fell vacant. One Smt. Anita Yadav was appointed as L. T. grade teacher. 3. After filing of the writ petition subsequent developments took place. One Smt. Savitri Yadav was promoted to post of Principal when the post of Principal was created by Director of Education on 6-4- 1984. On her promotion, the post of L. T. grade teacher fell vacant. One Smt. Anita Yadav was appointed as L. T. grade teacher. The Committee of Management passed a resolution on 6th January, 1985 appointing him as ad had teacher in L. T. grade teacher with effect from 6th April, 3 984 as she had started working as L. T. grade teacher with effect from the said date. Smt. Anita Yadav, however, resigned from her post on 26th October, 1988 and one L. T. grade post which was held by her fell vacant. 4. It appears that the papers regarding promotion of Smt. Santosh Yadav and Phoolmati Yadav were sent to the Secretary, U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission. The Deputy Secretary of the Commission vide letter dated 27-2-1989 intimated to respondent No. 1 and the Committee of Management of the institution that the papers which were sent for pro motion of Smt. Santosh Yadav and Phoolmati Yadav and Sudmeda Yadav were examined and it was found that none of them could be promoted because the institution was upgraded as High School on 30-6-1983 and the post in question had fallen vacant on 1-5-1988 and they had not completed five years continuous teaching experience as a C. T. grade teacher in the High School, Respondent No. 1, on the basis of the aforesaid letter, directed the Committee of Management on 14-6-1989 to fill up the post fell vacant on account of resignation of Smt. Anita Yadav by direct recruitment. The Management, in pursuance of the said letter preceded to make ad hoc appointment under Section 18 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982. 5. The petitioner was appointed as ad hoc L. T. grade teacher and she was issued an appointment letter on 27-6-1989. The Manager sent the papers to respondent No. 1 for according financial approval. Smt. Jai Shree Yadav, on coming to know of the appointment of the petitioner, made a represen tation on 6- 11-1989 to respondent No. 1, claiming that she was entitled for pro motion to the post in question. The Manager sent the papers to respondent No. 1 for according financial approval. Smt. Jai Shree Yadav, on coming to know of the appointment of the petitioner, made a represen tation on 6- 11-1989 to respondent No. 1, claiming that she was entitled for pro motion to the post in question. Respondent No. 1 issued a show cause notice dated 12-2-1990 to the Management, respondent No. 2, asking for explanation to the application moved by respondent No. 3, claiming her right of promotion on the post of L. T. grade teacher in the institution. The management sub mitted a reply that ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment was made on the basis of the letter dated 14-6-1989. Respondent No. 1 by her letter dated 19-9-1990 wrote to the Manager to promote respondent No. 3 as she was entitled for promotion on the basis of 4 per cent quota of promotion of the teachers working in the institution. The Committee of Management passed a resolution on 4-11-199j for promotion of respondent No. 3 as L T. grade teacher and sent the papers to Commission through respondent No. 1 for approval. The petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 1 for according approval. A copy of the represen tation of the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure 13 to the writ petition. The question is as to whether the ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment should have been made or the post should have been iiiled by promotion. 6. I have heard Sri T. N. Govil, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Raj Kumar Jain Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 3 at length. 7. The promotion to a post from C. T. grade to L. T. grade or L. T. grade to a Lecturer grade can be made either op the basis of the regular promotion or by ad hoc promotion. The procedure and the date of consideration of eligibility of both the cases are different. 8. The regular promotion has to be made on the basis of quota fixed for promotion of the lecturers. The quota of promotion has been fixed under Regulation 5 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under U. P. Intermediate Education Act. The procedure and the date of consideration of eligibility of both the cases are different. 8. The regular promotion has to be made on the basis of quota fixed for promotion of the lecturers. The quota of promotion has been fixed under Regulation 5 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under U. P. Intermediate Education Act. Clause 2 (a) of Regulation 5 provides that 40 per cent of the total number of sanctioned post in lecturers grade or in the L. T. grade shall only be filled by promotion from amongst teachers working in the institution in the L, T. grade and C. T. grades respectively and promotion shall be made subject to availability and eligibility of such teachers for promotion. The necessary qualification for promotion has been provided under Regulation 6 of the Regulations framed under the Act. After the enforcement of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982, the appointment has to be made in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Rule 9 of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 provides the procedure for appointment by promotion. Sub-rule (3) provides that the Management shall prepare a list of teachers referred to in sub-rule (1) and forward it to the Commission through Inspector with a copy of the seniority list for consi dering the names of the candidates for promotion. This promotion is to be made on the basis of quota fixed for promotion. The Commission, after examining the seniority and eligibility of the candidate will recommend the name of the candidate for promotion to the vacant post in the institution. 9 The procedure for making ad hoc promotion is different. If any vacancy arises in an institution, the Management has to notify the vacancy to the Commission as provided under Section 18 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982. After notifying the vacancy it has to make the appointment by direct recruit ment or promotion. The Management has to make appointment by promotion if suitable and eligible teacher is available in the institution, keeping in view the seniority of the teacher concerned. The Management, while making ad hoc promotion has not to adhere to the quota fixed for promotion under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act or Regulations framed thereunder. The Management has to make appointment by promotion if suitable and eligible teacher is available in the institution, keeping in view the seniority of the teacher concerned. The Management, while making ad hoc promotion has not to adhere to the quota fixed for promotion under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act or Regulations framed thereunder. In Cham Chandra Tiwari v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and others, (1990) 1 UP LBEC 160, a Division Bench of this Court held that under the U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 all the posts in the institution on ad hoc basis are primarily to be filled by promoting senior-most teacher and the method of direct recruitment for such appointment could be resorted to only if such teachers are not available or they are not eligible. Regulations 5 and 6 of Chapter II framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act providing for every appointment by direct recruitment except to the extent of 40 per cent by promotion has to be deemed to be modified so far ad hoc appointments are concerned. The word "every vacancy" used in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of Clause (4) of 1st Removal of Difficulties Order of 1981 are significant. This view has been upheld in a Full Bench decision of this Court in Km. Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and others, 1994 (2) Education and Service Cases 345. 10. The relevant date for taking into consideration the eligibility of the candidate while making appointment by promotion on Regular basis and on ad hoc basis are also different. Regulation 6 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act prescribes the qualifica tion for making appointment by promotion. The qualification must be judged "on the date of occurrence of the vacancy". Rule 9 of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 also used the words "on the date of occurrence of vacancy". The word vacancy has been defined under Rule 2 (hh) of Rules 1983 as follows :- "vacancy" means a vacancy arising out as a result of death, retire ment, resignation, termination, dismissal, creation of new post of appointment/promotion of the incumbent to any higher post in a substantive capacity. The word vacancy has been defined under Rule 2 (hh) of Rules 1983 as follows :- "vacancy" means a vacancy arising out as a result of death, retire ment, resignation, termination, dismissal, creation of new post of appointment/promotion of the incumbent to any higher post in a substantive capacity. " When the regular promotion is to be made, the Management of the institution is bound to recommend the name of eligible teacher for promotion to the Commission as provided under Rule 9 of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 on occurrence of a vacancy. An eligible teacher on the date of occurrence of vacancy shall be recommended for promotion without having applied for the same. The position is different in the case of ad hoc promotion under Section 18 of the Act. The Management has to notify the vacancy to the Commission and when it fails to recommend the name of any candidate, it can decide to fill up the post either by direct recruitment or pro motion. The person who may not be eligible on the date of occurrence of vacancy may become eligible on the date the Management decides to make ad hoc appointment. The date of vacancy may remain the same, but the date for considering the eligibility shall be different. There may be circumstances under which the post may remain vacant and it is not notified to the Commis sion or the Management even after notifying vacancy remains silent for long time and does not take steps to fill up the vacancy. On such case the relevant date for considering the eligibility of a teacher is the date when Management decides to fill the vacancy. When the regular promotion has to take place the vacancy has to be examined on the date when it occurs as defined under the Rules. When certain posts are created, the date of creation of vacancy will be the date of occurrence of vacancy and not the date of filling up of such vacancy or modification in mode of filling up of such vacancy. 11. When certain posts are created, the date of creation of vacancy will be the date of occurrence of vacancy and not the date of filling up of such vacancy or modification in mode of filling up of such vacancy. 11. In Committee of Management, Sri Ram Krishna Paramhans Inter College, Hanuman Nagar, Azamgarh v. The Additional Director of Education, U. P. Allahabad and others, 1981 UPLBEC 50, it was held that the condition precedent is possession of minimum of five years continuous service on the date of occurrence of vacancy and not the date of filling up of such vacancy. 12. In Hans Raj Singh v. U. P. Secondary Education Services Commis sion, Allahabad and others, (1990) 2 UPLBEC 1127, it was held that : "the date on which the Management, after expiry of more than two months from the date of vacancy, decides to make ad hoc appoint ment under Section 18 (l) (b), is the relevant date with reference to which eligibility for purposes of promotion is to be seen. " If on this date a teacher is eligible for promotion he has to be promoted and no appointment by direct recruitment can be made under this provision. However, if eligible teacher for promotion is not available on the aforesaid date, the Management will have full right to make ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment. The post in question is alleged to have fallen vacant on the resignation of Smt. Anita Yadav on 26-10-1988. The Committee of Management in view of letter respondent No. 1 proceeded to make direct recruitment. There is no allegation that respondent No. 3 was not eligible for the post of L. T. grade teacher on the said date. She has stated that she was appointed as C. T. grade teacher on 21st October, 1980. She had five years continuous service as C. T. grade teacher at least in the year 1988. She had passed M. A. examination. The only question remained to be considered was as to whether she was senior to other teachers qualified for appointment. The Committee of Management passed resolution on 4th November, 1990 for promotion of respondent No. 3. She had five years continuous service as C. T. grade teacher at least in the year 1988. She had passed M. A. examination. The only question remained to be considered was as to whether she was senior to other teachers qualified for appointment. The Committee of Management passed resolution on 4th November, 1990 for promotion of respondent No. 3. There is nothing to show that any objection has been filed by any of the teacher of the institution before respondent No. 1 against the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 4th November, 1990, promoting respondent No. 3 as L. T. grade teacher. 13. As regards the regular promotion on the basis of 40 per cent quota of promotion as provided under Regulation 5 of Chapter-II of the Regulations framed under the Act, the Committee of Management was to decide the total number of the posts of L. T. grade teachers on the relevant dates. It is alleged that two posts of L. T. grade teachers were created on 6th April, 1984. Admit tedly, one post was to be filled by promotion if on the said date any eligible teacher was available. It appears that respondent No. 1 approved the name of Smt. Santosh Yadav and Smt. Phoolmati Yadav by order dated 19-12-1984 but subsequently Deputy Secretary Education Service Commission did not approve the same. 14. After the resignation of Smt. Anita Yadav, a teacher in L. T. grade in the institution on 26-10-1988, again vacancy arose to the post of L. T. grade teacher. On the said date the Management should have decided the total strength of the L. T. grade teachers and after taking into consideration the quota of promotion as provided under law, could have recommended the name of such candidate for promotion to the Secondary Education Service Commis sion as provided under Rule 9 of U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rule, 1983. The Committee of Management has passed a resolution on 4-11-1990 stating that respondent No. 3 is entitled for promotion under 40 per cent quota fixed for promotion of the teachers of the institution. The question of regular promotion was required to be decided by the Commission as provided under 1983 Rules. The Committee of Management has passed a resolution on 4-11-1990 stating that respondent No. 3 is entitled for promotion under 40 per cent quota fixed for promotion of the teachers of the institution. The question of regular promotion was required to be decided by the Commission as provided under 1983 Rules. Respondent No. 1, has, however, a right to approve the ad hoc promotion for the purpose of sanctioning the salary bills as provided under High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. 15. The petitioner has filed writ petition for a mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to accord approval to his ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment. The Committee of Management has already submitted a resolu tion for promotion of respondent No. 3. There does not seem to be any illegality in the resolution passed by the Committee of Management. The petitioner has also not filed any objection before respondent No. 1. 16. Smt. Sumeda Yadav filed an application for her impleadment in the writ petition stating that she is senior to respondent No. 3. Her applica tion has been rejected on the ground that the question of seniority cannot be decided in the writ petition. If she has a right, she can file an objection before respondent No. 1 who shall pass appropriate order within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, keeping in view the observations made above and in accordance with law. 17. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of finally. 18. The parties shall bear their own costs. Petition disposed of. .