SUDHIR NARAIN, J. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16th March, 1994 passed by Deputy Director of Education (Women) Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad respondent No, 3, whereby the claim of the petitioner for function ing as officiating Principal was rejected and the report of the Accounts Officer dated 18th May, 1993 was accepted. 2. The facts in brief are that Gopi Radha Balika Uchchatar Madhymik Vidyalaya, Durga Kund, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the institution) was a Junior High School. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the institution on 1-8-1964. The school was upgraded to High School in the year 1969. The recognition for Art subject for 9th and 10th classes was given in the month of November, 1972. The petitioner was teaching Art subject to the students of class IX and X. She was initially appointed in H. T. C. scale. When the institution was upgraded to High School in the year 1969 the petitioner started getting Rs. 110 per month which according to the petitioner was higher than C. T. grade. The State Government issued G. O No. 5583/15-8-3100/73 dated 3-10-1974, providing certain benefits to the teachers appointed for Music, Art, Home Science, Shorthand, Book Craft and Wood Craft in aided High School and Intermediate Colleges. The teachers who were teaching these subjects in High School or Intermediate were given L. T. grade or Lecturers grade provided they were qualified for teaching and in fact they were teaching the students of those classes. The petitioner, after coming into force the said G. O. claimed that as she was qualified and teaching Art subject to the students of 9th and 10th classes, she was entitled to L. T. grade with effect from 1st August, 1972. The Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Vth Region, Varanasi by order dated 23rd May, 1975 sanctioned L. T. grade to the petitioner in accordance with G. O. dated 3-10-1974 with effect from 1-8-1972. 3. One Smt. Maya Mukhopadhya was functioning as Principal of the institution. She retired on 30th June 1991 on attaining the age of super annuation. Smt. Krishna Devi who was the senior-most teacher in the institu tion refused to work as Principal. The petitioner was thereafter asked to officiate as Principal as she was placed at serial No. ?. 3. One Smt. Maya Mukhopadhya was functioning as Principal of the institution. She retired on 30th June 1991 on attaining the age of super annuation. Smt. Krishna Devi who was the senior-most teacher in the institu tion refused to work as Principal. The petitioner was thereafter asked to officiate as Principal as she was placed at serial No. ?. on the seniority list, Respondent No. 8 made a representation before the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools on 22nd June, 1992 against the seniority list. She claimed that she was appointed on 21-7-1973 as an assistant teacher in L. T. grade and she was senior to the petitioner. 4. The Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools asked the comments from the Management of the institution on 18-8-1992. The Management submitted a reply stating that the seniority was fixed on the basis of the letter of the Regional Inspectress of Girls School dated 31st March, 1981. She had fixed the seniority treating the petitioner as Assistant L. T. grade teacher with effect from 1-8-1992 as the petitioner was granted scale of pay of L. T. grade teacher with effect from said date in view of G. O. dated 3-10-1974. A report from Accounts Officer was called for. The Account Officer submitted a report dated 18th May, 1993 stating that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of G. O. dated 3-10- 1974. She was entitled to L. T. grade with effect from 1-1-1986. 5. The Regional Inspectress of Girls School, Vth Region, Varanasi wrote a letter dated 24th May, 1993 asking the Management to fix the seniority of the teachers in accordance with Regulation 3 of Chapter II of the Regula tions framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. By another letter dated 29-6- 1993 she itoofc the view that in accordance with G. O. dated 3-10-1974 the teachers of C. T. grade were entitled to L. T. grade with effect from 1-11-1973. The Manager of the institution wrote a letter dated 1- 7-1993 directing the petitioner to hand over the charge of the post of officiating Principal to respondent No. 8. 6. The petitioner aggrieved against this order filed writ petition No. 24356 of 1993 in this Court. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the petitioner may approach the Director of Education U. P. who shall examine the matter. 6. The petitioner aggrieved against this order filed writ petition No. 24356 of 1993 in this Court. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the petitioner may approach the Director of Education U. P. who shall examine the matter. The petitioner made a representation to Director of Education, respondent No. 1, in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 18-10-1993. The Director of Education sent the matter to the Deputy Director of Education (Women) Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, to decide the representation. Respondent No. 3 has decided the representation by order dated 16th March, 1994 holding that respondent No. 8 is senior to the peti tioner and secondly, the report of Accounts Officer dated 18th May, 1993 is correct and the petitioner was not entitled to L. T. grade under the G. O. dated 3 -10-1994. The petitioner has challenged this order in the writ petition. 7. I have heard Sri G. C. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the peti tioner and Sri Faujdar Rai learned counsel for respondent No. 8 and the learn ed standing counsel for other respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that this Court has passed order on 7-10-1993 directing the Director of Education to decide the contro versy between the parties. The Director of Education instead of deciding the matter sent the papers to the Deputy Director of Education (Women) respon dent No. 3 who decided the matter. The order passed by respondent No. 3 is without jurisdiction and is not in complaince with the order passed by this Court dated 7-10-1993. Respondent No. 8 has filed a counter affidavit. It has been stated that Dr. Dayawati Khanna is Additional Director of Educa tion, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad and she has decided the representation. It is by mistake in the order it was typed as Deputy Director of Education. 9. The definition of director includes additional Director as provided under U. P. Amendment Act No. 5 of 1982 which reads as under- (d) "director means the Director of Education Uttar Pradesh and includes an Additional Director of Education Uttar Pradesh. 10. In view of the definition given above, as regards deciding the representation, the Additional Director of Education was fully competent to decide the matter. The matter has been decided by the Additional Director of Education (Women) Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad. 10. In view of the definition given above, as regards deciding the representation, the Additional Director of Education was fully competent to decide the matter. The matter has been decided by the Additional Director of Education (Women) Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad. The order has thus been passed in compliance with the order passed by this Court. 11. The first question is whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of G. O. dated 3-10-1974 whereby the salary of the petitioner was fixed and secondly whether the petitioner is senior to respondent No. 8. The State Government issued notification No. 55o/xv-8-3100-1973 dated October 3, 1974 whereby the pay-scales of teachers to Government aided private Higher Secondary institutions teaching Home Science, Music, Art and other specified subjects were revised on the basis of the recommendation of the Pay Commis sion as to accord parity in scales of pay of the teachers of Government and non-Government aided Higher Secondary Institutions of the State teaching specified subjects. Those teachers who were teaching High School students in those specified subjects and were qualified for teaching such subjects, were given L. T. Grade and those teachers who were teaching students of Interme diate classes in such specified subjects were given Lecturer grade. The scales of pay were revised retrospectively w. e. f. 1-8-1972 on fulfilling certain condi tions and those who did not fulfil the conditions, were given revised pay scale w. e. f. 1-11-1973. 12. The petitioner claimed that she was teaching Art subject to the students of 9th and 10th classes after upgradation of the institution in the year 1969. The institution was upgraded to High School in 1969 and the recognition of the Art subject was granted only in the month of November, 1972 by the Authorities concerned. On the date of enforcement of the Gover nment Order on 3rd October, 1974 she was entitled to get L. T. grade. Her claim was accepted by the Regional inspectress of Girls School, Vth Region, by order dated 23rd May 1975. The Audit Report was submitted on 23-1-1989 indicating that petitioner was not entitled to L. T. grade with effect from 1-8-1972. When respondent No. 8 made a representation, the comments were sought from the Management and also from the Senior Finance and Account Officer, Directorate of Education, U. P. , Allahabad. An inquiry was made. The Audit Report was submitted on 23-1-1989 indicating that petitioner was not entitled to L. T. grade with effect from 1-8-1972. When respondent No. 8 made a representation, the comments were sought from the Management and also from the Senior Finance and Account Officer, Directorate of Education, U. P. , Allahabad. An inquiry was made. The Accounts Officer submitted a report that service book and approval letters with regard to promotion and award of higher scale of pay to the petitioner were not available. The petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of G. O. dated 3-10. 1974. He took the view that the C. T. grade was not applicable to Junior High Schools and the petitioner was not working in C. T. grade on the date of her appointment. She was further not appointed as the Art teacher. She could not further be granted L. T. grade with effect from 1st August, 1972 as on the said date the Art subject was not a recognised subject by the Director of Education in the institution and lastly, the petitioner had given the option on 1-11-1973 and on such option being given she could not get L. T. grade with effect from 1-8-1972. 13. The Additional Director of Education (Women) vide her letter dated 17-3-1993 directed the Regional Inspectress of Girls School, Varanasi to procure the service book of the petitioner and other records and get her pay-scale determined and further to stop the payment of her salary till the final decision in the matter. In pursuance of the said letter the R. 1. G. S. , Varanasi by her letter dated 29-3-1993 directed the Accounts Officer to deter mine the pay-scale of the petitioner. The Accounts Officer holding the inquiry, found that the petitioner was not entitled to L. T. grade with effect from 1-8-1972. She was entitled to C. T. grade with effect from 1-7-1970 and L. T. grade with effect from 1-1-1986 and it was found that the petitioner had received the excess amount of salary. This report has been approved by the impugned order dated 16th March, 1994. 14. The Accounts Officer did not record any finding that the petitioner was not teaching Art subject to the students of 9th and 10th classes of the institution on the date of enforcement of the G. O. dated 5- 10-1974. There is no dispute regarding qualifications of the petitioner. 14. The Accounts Officer did not record any finding that the petitioner was not teaching Art subject to the students of 9th and 10th classes of the institution on the date of enforcement of the G. O. dated 5- 10-1974. There is no dispute regarding qualifications of the petitioner. The petitioner passed High School examination in the year 1954, Intermediate Examination with Arts in 1957, H. T. C. in 1963, Shastri in 1968 and Intermediate (Drawing) Maharashtra Government in the year 1971. The R. I. G. S. Varanasi had granted recognition for Art subject on 14-11-1972. The qualification for teaching Art to the students of High School are given in Appendix a of Chapter-H of the Regulations framed under the Act. Item No. 12 (unamended) prescribes the qualification for teaching the students of 9th and 10th classes. A teacher who had passed Intermediate (Drawing) Examination of Bombay, was qualified for teaching Art subject to High School Students. It is not disputed that the petitioner had passed Intermediate (Drawing) Examination of Maharashtra Government in the year 1971. There is no allegation that the petitioner was not teaching Art subject to the students of 9th and 10th classes of the institution. The petitioner was thus fully entitled to the benefit of Government Order dated 3-10-1974 and get the pay scale applicable to teachers who were appointed to teach the students of 9th and 10th classes. Admittedly, the recognition of Art subject was given on 14-11-1972. Her scale of pay was fixed by the R. I. G. S. , Varanasi on 23rd May, 1975 granting the benefit of G. O. dated 3-10-1974. The Accounts Officer without taking into considera tion this aspect acted illegally in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the pay-scale which was admissible to a teacher of L. T. grade. 15. Another aspect is as to whether the petitioner was entitled to the pay-scale of L. T. grade teacher with effect from 1-8-1972. G. O. dated 3-10-1974 refers to the G. O. dated 18th January, 1974. The Accounts Officer recorded finding that the petitioner did not fulfil the conditions, to get L. T. grade salary w. e. f. 1-8-1972. Secondly, on 1st August, lb72 the recognition of Art subject was not given and unless recognition is granted, the appoint ment could not have been made to teach such subject. The Accounts Officer recorded finding that the petitioner did not fulfil the conditions, to get L. T. grade salary w. e. f. 1-8-1972. Secondly, on 1st August, lb72 the recognition of Art subject was not given and unless recognition is granted, the appoint ment could not have been made to teach such subject. The petitioner was not, therefore, entitled to L. T. grade pay-scale with effect from 1-8-1972. In view of Para 3 of G O. dated 3-10-1974 the petitioner was entitled to L. T. grade only with effect from 1-11-1973. 16. The next question is whether the petitioner or respondent No. 8 is senior. The inter se seniority of the teachers has to be determined in accordance with Regulation 3 of Chapter II of Regulations framed under the Act. Regulation 3 (l) (b) provides as under : "seniority of teachers in grade shall be determined on the basis of their substantive appointment in that grade. If two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age. " It is the date of substantive appointment which is the determining factor. In Shitla Prasad Shukla v. State ofu. P. and others, 1984 UPLBEC 461, it was held that for computing the seniority in lecturers grade, the relevant date is not the data when the teacher started teaching as lecturer but the date when the substantive appointment is made. In the present case, respondent No. 8 was appointed as L. T. grade teacher on 28-7-1973. The petitioner was not appointed as L. T. grade teacher. She was given H. T. C. grade in the year 1964. In the year 1969 the institution was upgraded as High School and thereafter she was granted C. T. grade, According to the petitioner she was getting Rs. 110 in the year 1969 which was a little higher than the C. T. grade pay scale after increment. She continued to get the salary accordingly till 23rd May, 1975 when the R. I. G. S. , Varanasi granted pay-scale of L. T. grade teacher to her with effect from 1-8-1972. 17. The grant of pay scale of L. T. grade cannot itself be taken as an appointment on a substantive basis in L. T. grade. She continued to get the salary accordingly till 23rd May, 1975 when the R. I. G. S. , Varanasi granted pay-scale of L. T. grade teacher to her with effect from 1-8-1972. 17. The grant of pay scale of L. T. grade cannot itself be taken as an appointment on a substantive basis in L. T. grade. In Vipin Kamar v. District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar and others, 1994 (23) ALR 27, it was held that where a teacher is given a lecturers pay scale, will not be taken have been given the post of lecturer unless he is duly promoted according to the Statute. 18. The State Government by G. O. dated 3-10-1974 provided that the salary may be paid to the teacher in the pay scale which is admissible to those teachers who were teaching the same subjects to the students of the same classes. Privilege was granted to those teachers. There was no substantive appointment. 19. The effect and scope of Notification No. 5583/xv-8-3100/1973 dated October 3, 1974 issued by the Government of U. P. and that of Regulation framed under U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, was considered by the Supreme Court in Smt. Naseem Bano v. State of U. P. , 1993 UPLBEC 307. It was held that while determining the qualification for promotion to the post of L. T. or lecturer grade the qualification prescribed under the Regulation framed under the Act will prevail over the qualification prescribed under the G. O. dated October 3, 1974 as the letter is only an executive order. The Court observed as under : "promotion from C. T. grade to L. T. grade is governed by clause (1) of Regulation 6 which postulates.- (i) having a minimum five years continuous substantive service on the date of occurrence of the vacancy; and (ii) possessing the prescribed minimum quali fication for teaching the subject in which the teacher in the lecturer grade or in the L. T. Grade is required. The prescribed minimum qualifications referred to in clause (1) of Regulation 6 are the minimum qualifications which are prescribed in the Regulations for appointment as teacher to teach the concerned subject which would mean the minimum qualification as laid down in the Appendix to the Regulations. The prescribed minimum qualifications referred to in clause (1) of Regulation 6 are the minimum qualifications which are prescribed in the Regulations for appointment as teacher to teach the concerned subject which would mean the minimum qualification as laid down in the Appendix to the Regulations. Clause (1) of Regulation 6 cannot be construed as referring to the notification dated October 3, 1974 because the notification is only an executive order and the qualifications prescribed therein cannot override the qualifications prescrib ed in the Regulations which are statutory in character. " 20. Secondly the Government could not have conferred a right as against another teacher with regard to a post effecting the seniority retrospectively by an executive order. The G. O. dated 3-10-1974 came into existence on 3rd October, 1974. A teacher might have been granted certain emoluments or enhanced pay scale but that will not deprive the right of a teacher who has been appointed on substantive post while determining the seniority. Respon dent No. 8 was appointed as L. T. grade teacher on 28-7-1973. The petitioner in these circumstances cannot claim that as the salary has been fixed to L. T. grade with effect from 1-8-1972 she became senior to respondent No. 8. Respondent No. 8 is senior to the petitioner taking into consideration the date of her appointment as L. T. grade teacher. Even otherwise, on the findings recorded above that the petitioner could not be granted revised pay-scale w. e. f. 1-8- 1972, but could be granted only w. e. f. 1-11-1973, the petitioner will be junior to the respondent No. 8 who was appointed as L. T. grade teacher on 28-7-1973. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the petitioner had been shown senior to respondent No. 8 since the year 1975 and it should not be disturbed so as to affect her right of promotion. He placed reliance on Dr. M. S. Mudhol and another v. Shri S. D. Haleghar and others, J. T. 1993 (4) SC 143, wherein the appointment of Principal of a private aided school was challenged after 9 years by writ of quo warranto in the High Court on the ground that the Principal did not possess requisite minimum qualification at the time of appointment. M. S. Mudhol and another v. Shri S. D. Haleghar and others, J. T. 1993 (4) SC 143, wherein the appointment of Principal of a private aided school was challenged after 9 years by writ of quo warranto in the High Court on the ground that the Principal did not possess requisite minimum qualification at the time of appointment. The Court declined to interfere in appointment holding that mistake if any, was committed by the Selection Committee and not the Principal and it was inequitous to make him suffer for the same after a period of twelve years. In the present case, the dispute arose regarding the post of the Principal on the retirement of perma nent Principal on 30-6-1991. Respondent No. 3 immediately thereafter pre ferred her claim for appointment on the basis of seniority as provided under Regulation 3 to Chapter II of the Regulations. The Regional Inspectress of Girls School directed to make necessary enquiry and now by the impugned order it has been held that respondent No. 8 is senior to the petitioner. The ratio of decision of Dr. M. S. Mudhols case (supra) has no application to the facts of this case. 22. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The salary of the petitioner shall not be deducted and she will be paid the salary which is being paid to her. Respondent No. 8, however, shall be treated as senior to the petitioner and she is entitled for ad hoc promotion in preference to the petitioner. 23. The parties shall bear their own costs. Petition partly allowed. .