SUDHIR NARAIN, J. In both these petitions common question of law and fact are involved and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Km. Leela Paulus is petitioner in Writ petition No. 28340 of 1994. In this judgment she will be referred to as the petitioner and Km. Vijai Sherring shall be referred as respondent No. 4. 2. The dispute relates with regard to the appointment to the post of Principal of C. N. I. Girls Inter College, Dehradun. 3. The necessary facts, in brief, are that C. N. I. Girls Inter College, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as the institution) is a minority institution. It is, however, recognised under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Educa tion Act, 1921 and is under the grant-in-aid List of the State Government. One Miss. V. Pratap Singh, was the Principal of the institution. On her retirement Miss. M. P. Davis was appointed as Principal of the institution. She was to retire on 30-6-1994 on attaining the age of superannuation. The Committee of Management, fill up the said post, proceeded to make appointment by making selection. It advertised the post in two newspapers, namely, dainik Jagaran and times of India dated 7-5-1994 and 10-5-1994 respectively inviting the applications for appointment to the post of Principal. Thirteen candidates applied for appointment to the post including Km. Leela Paulus, the petitioner. The Selection Committee interviewed the candidates on 25-6-1994. Respondent No. 4 was selected by the Selection Committee. She was directed to take charge of the post of Principal on 1-7-1994 The necessary papers for approval of her selection were seat to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Gaihwal Region, Pauri, respondent No 1 On 6-7-1994 respondent No. 1 approved the selection of respondent No. 4. 4. In the meantime the petitioner filed suit No. 436 of 1994 on 29-6-1994, in the Court of Civil Judge. Dehradun against the College, the Managing Committee of the College and Agra Diocesan Council of the Church of Northern India for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled for promotion to the post of Principal of the college and for a mandatory injunction to the defendants in the suit to promote her on the post of Principal of the College. She also had filed an application for interim injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Dehradun. The trial court fixed 7th July, 1994 and refused to grant exparte injunction. She also had filed an application for interim injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Dehradun. The trial court fixed 7th July, 1994 and refused to grant exparte injunction. Against the said order the petitioner filed revision before the District Judge, Dehradun. On 6th July, 1994, the Illrd Additional District Judge, Dehradun passed an order that the respondents (in revision) shall not approve the appointment of any body for the post of Principal till the date fixed and directed that revision be put up on 2-8-1994 for disposal. 5. The petitioner, concealing the fact that she had filed Suit No. 436 of 1994 in the court of Civil Judge, filed writ petition No. 20148 of 1994 claiming the right of appointment as Principal in the College. The writ petition was disposed of finally with the observation on that the petitioner shall make his grievance by filing a representation before the Deputy Director of Education, Pauri Garhwal, Dehradun which shall be considered and decided by him. The petitioner submitted her representation before respondent No. 1 on 14th July, 1994 and a supplementary representation on 26th July, 1994. Respondent No. 1 issued notice to the petitioner and respondent No. 4 and the Committee of the College, and after hearing the parties concerned rejected the representation of the petitioner by his order dated 28-7-1994. The petitioner has challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 28340 of 1994. 6. The District Inspector of Schools passed an order on 6th July, 1994 directing the Manager of the College to hand over the charge of the post of Principal to the Senior-most teacher teaching in the College till the final approval of the appointment on the post of Principal was given by the autho rity concerned. The similar letter was issued on 21st July, 1994, 27th July, 1994 and 15th August, 1994. These letters of the District Inspector of Schools, Dehradun have been challenged by the Committee of Management of the College and Miss. Vijai Sherring in writ petition No. 28635 of 1994 on the ground that after the selection for the post of Principal having taken place and a duly selected candidate has been approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Garhwal Region, Pauri, the District Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction to restrain Miss. Vijai Sherring from functioning as Principal in the institution. 7. Vijai Sherring from functioning as Principal in the institution. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Rajesh Tandon, urged that the petitioner is the senior-most lecturer in the college and she is entitled to function as Principal of the College on the occurrence of vacancy of the post of Principal. This contention is not acceptable in the present case as the appointment of respondent No. 4 had been made on the basis of selection as contemplated under Section 16-FF of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the act)- If the appointment is to be made on the basis of selection as provided under Section 16-FF of the Act only such selected candidate is entitled to function who has been duly selected by the Selection Committee and approved by the Deputy Director of Education of the Region concerned. The appointment has not to be made on the basis of the seniority but it is on the basis of the selection and in accordance with tae aforesaid provisions of the Act. 8. The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Selection Committee was not duly constituted and the procedure for making the selection as provided under Regulation 17 of Chapter-H of the Regulations, framed under the Act, was not followed. 9. The selection of Head of an institution requires approval of the Regional Deputy Director of Education under sub-section (4) of Section 16-FF of the Act. Respondent No. 1 had granted the approval on 6th July, 1994 of the selection made by the Selection Committee and approved the appointment of respondent No. 4. The petitioner, in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition referred to above, submitted a representation to respondent No. 1 who rejected the representation of the petitioner by order dated 28th July, 1994 and considered the objection of the petitioner relating to selection and appointment of respondent No. 4. He found that there was no illegality in the selection procedure and appointment of respondent No. 4. 10. The Regional Deputy Director of Education while granting the approval for the selection made under Section 16-FF of the Act has to consi der two aspects : (1) The person selected possesses the minimum qualification prescribed and is otherwise eligible. He found that there was no illegality in the selection procedure and appointment of respondent No. 4. 10. The Regional Deputy Director of Education while granting the approval for the selection made under Section 16-FF of the Act has to consi der two aspects : (1) The person selected possesses the minimum qualification prescribed and is otherwise eligible. (2) The procedure has been followed in making the selection as provided under Regulation 17 of Chapter-II of the Regulations framed under the Act. The Regional Deputy Director of Education has not to consider comparative merits of each candidate who appeared before the Selection Committee and record his own finding whether the view taken by the experts and members of the Selection Committee selecting the suitability of a candidate is justified. He is only to consider whether the person who has been selected possesses the minimum qualification prescribed and is otherwise eligible. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 4 did not possess the minimum qualifica tions prescribed under the Act and was not eligible under the provisions of the Act. As regards the second question whether the procedure prescribed under Regulation 17 (2) of the Regulations was followed, it is not disputed that the petitioner had herself applied for appointment to the post of Principal. She also appeared before the Selection Committee. A panel of experts was appointed and one of the nominees of the Government was also member of the Selection Committee. It is urged that the college is running under the Scheme of Administration which provides that only a Christian working in the same college can be appointed as its Principal. The selection was to be made at Dahradun. The Members of the Selection Committee and experts were biased. 11. The institution is admittedly minority institution and selection is to be made in accordance with Section 16-FF of the Act. The petitioner has to establish that the Scheme of Administration is not in contravention with the provisions of Section 16-FF of the Act. The petitioner has already filed a suit for declaration of her rights for appointment as Principal of the College. The suit was filed on 29th June, 1994 after the selection had taken place on 25th June, 1994. She has already challenged the selection in the said suit. 12. The petitioner has already filed a suit for declaration of her rights for appointment as Principal of the College. The suit was filed on 29th June, 1994 after the selection had taken place on 25th June, 1994. She has already challenged the selection in the said suit. 12. In view of the above, there is no reason to interfere with the order of respondent No. 1 granting approval of appointment to respondent No. 4 as Principal vide order dated 28th July, 1994. The District Inspector of Schools, Dehradun has passed the orders on 18th July, 1994, 21st July, 1994 and 18th August, 1994 directing the Committee of Management to hand over the charge to the Senior-most lecturer of the college, ignoring the selection which was made on 25th June, 1994 and the approval granted by Regional Deputy Director of Education, Garhwal Region, Pauri. After the selection having been made only such candidate is entitled to be appointed as Head of the institution who has been selected. Respondent No. 4 has been admittedly selected by the Selection Committee and she having been issued the appoint ment letter, the District Inspector of Schools had no right to pass an order directing any other person to be appointed as Principal of the institution. 13. In view of the discussions made above, writ petition No. 28340 of 1994 is dismissed. The Writ petition No. 28635 of 1994 is allowed and the orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 6- 7-1994, 18-7-1994, 21-7-1994, 27-7-1994 and 18-8-1994 are hereby quashed. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs. Decided accordingly. .