JUDGMENT : R.H. Zaidi, J. Petitioner, by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the validity of the resolution of the committee of management of Inter College, Kanchausi Bazar, Etawah dated 26.11.1978 promoting the Respondent No. 3 to the post of lecturer and the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 5.1.1979 approving the said promotion and further claims his promotion to the post of lecturer. 2. The brief facts of the case are that in October, 1978 the post in question was newly created, the committee of management vide its resolution dated 26.11.78 proposed to promote Sri Jagat Narain Tiwari, the Respondent No. 3 to the said post. The aforesaid proposal of committee of management was objected to by the Petitioner before the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools vide his order dated 5.1.1979 approved the proposal of the committee of management to promote Sri Jagat Narain Tiwari to the post in question. The Petitioner by means of this petition has challenged the resolution of the committee of management dated 26.11.1978 and the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 5.1.79 referred to above. 3. In brief, it was pleaded by the Petitioner that on 16.7.73, he was appointed as assistant teacher in L.T. grade in the College, he has been, since then, continuously working as the teacher and has been teaching civics to the High School and Intermediate classes. He has been giving good results and his work and conduct was always appreciated and praised by the authorities of the College. He claimed that except him, no other teacher is eligible to be promoted to the post in question in as much, as only he had the requisite experience of teaching of civics in the College. He pleaded that Respondent No. 3 was a teacher of science and mathematics of High School classes and had no experience of teaching of civics. The committee of management without following the procedure prescribed under the law arbitrarily promoted the Respondent No. 3 to the post of lecturer and the District Inspector of Schools has also erred in law in approving the same. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by Respondent No. 3, the facts stated in the writ petition have been controverted. The committee of management without following the procedure prescribed under the law arbitrarily promoted the Respondent No. 3 to the post of lecturer and the District Inspector of Schools has also erred in law in approving the same. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by Respondent No. 3, the facts stated in the writ petition have been controverted. He claimed that he was senior to the Petitioner inasmuch as he was appointed on 8.7.1972 while the Petitioner was appointed on 16.7.73. He further stated that he also possessed the degree of M.A. in Political Science, therefore, he was eligible to be promoted to the post in question in preference to the Petitioner. He further pleaded that one Shri Sarvesh Chandra Dubey, who also possessed the degree of M.A. in Political Science, was also Junior to him. in the select list, the name of Respondent No. 3 was placed at serial No. 1, of Sarvesh Chandra Dubey at serial No. 2 and the name of the Petitioner at serial No.3, Sri Sarvesh Chandra Dubey having not challenged the appointment of the Respondent No. 3, the Petitioner has no locus standi to challenge his promotion. 5. The District Inspector of Schools has also filed the counter-affidavit controverting the facts stated in the writ petition and Justifying the promotion of Respondent No. 3 to the post in question. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 3 and also the learned standing counsel for Respondent No. 2. 7. Learned Counsel for Petitioner urged that only the Petitioner had five years teaching experience and Respondent No.3 and Sri Sarvesh Chandra Dubey had no such experience, therefore, Respondent No.3 was not qualified to be promoted to the post of lecturer. It was also urged that no selection committee for selecting candidate for promotion to the post in question was constituted and the committee of management arbitrarily resolved to promote Respondent No. 3 to the post of lecturer without following the procedure prescribed u/s 16F (ia) and (ib). A reference to Regulations 18, 19 and 20 of Chapter III of the Regulation framed under the Act was also made by learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 8. A reference to Regulations 18, 19 and 20 of Chapter III of the Regulation framed under the Act was also made by learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 contended that for promotion to the post of lecturer, it was not necessary that the candidate should possess five years teaching experience of the subject in question, what was required under rules was a minimum five years continuous substantive service on the date of occurrence of vacancy and not five years, teaching experience in the subject in question. It was also contended that under Regulation 6 of Chapter II of the Regulations, only committee of management after following the procedure prescribed under the said Regulations recommends the names of the candidates for the promotion to the post of lecturer. It was also submitted that reference to Section 16F and Regulations 18 to 20 of Chapter III of the Regulations was wholly irrelevant. On facts, it was urged that on the relevant date, Respondent No. 3 also possessed the degree of M.A. in Political Science and was also teaching civics to Intermediate classes. He was thus fully qualified to be promoted to the post of Lecturer. 9. For the purposes of the present case, provisions of clauses (1), (2) and (3) of Regulation 6 of Chapter II of the Regulations and Item No. 12 of Appendix A, are relevant which are reproduced below: 6 (1) Where any vacancy in the lecturer grade or in the L.T. grade as determined under Regulation 5, is to be filled by promotion, all teachers working in L.T. or C.T. grade, as the case may be, having a minimum of five years continuous substantive service to their credit on the date of occurrence of vacancy shall be considered for promotion by the committee of management without their having to apply for the same provided they possessed the prescribed minimum qualifications for teaching the subject in which the teacher in lecturer grade or in L.T. grade is required. Note.--For the purposes of this clause, service rendered by a teacher in L.T. or C.T. grade in any other recognised institution shall count for eligibility, unless interrupted by removal, dismissal or reduction to a lower post. Note.--For the purposes of this clause, service rendered by a teacher in L.T. or C.T. grade in any other recognised institution shall count for eligibility, unless interrupted by removal, dismissal or reduction to a lower post. (2) Selection for the promotion to the next higher grade shall be made on the basis of service standing, achievements in service, academic qualifications and integrity. (3) Subject to clause (2), where more than one teacher in L.T. grade are eligible for promotion to the post of lecturer in any subject, preference shall be given to the teacher, who is senior-most amongst them in service in that grade. APPENDIX 'A' (IN REFERENCE TO REGULATION I OF CHAPTER II) Minimum qualifications for appointment of Head Master, teacher in private recognised higher secondary schools. ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS S. No. Name of the post Education Training Experience Age Desirable Qualifications 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 12 Civics Teacher Trained for Intermediate (classes 11 & 12) (1) M. A. (Political Science) (2) B. A. (Hons) or three years course in Political Science 10. What is required for promotion to the post of lecturer is five years continuous substantive service on the date of occurrence of vacancy and not the five years teaching experience in the subject in question, as it is apparent from the Regulation 6, noted above. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to the contrary does not appear to be correct. In Committee of Management v. Distt. Inspector of Schools, 1990 (1) UPLBEC 137, a Division Bench of this Court relying upon another Division Bench decision in the case of Committee of Management v. Addl. Director of Education 1981 UPLBEC 50, was pleased to hold that the teacher concerned should have a minimum five years of continuous substantive service on the date of occurrence of vacancy under Regulation 6, which has got statutory force. 11. Similarly, in Pati Ram Pal v. District Inspector of Schools 1993 (1) UPLBEC 319, a Division Bench of this Court was pleased to hold that it was not necessary that the post of Hindi lecturer is to be filled by promotion of only a Hindi teacher. It was also held that committee of management is entitled to promote such teachers to the vacancies caused in L.T. grade, which is required to teach the subject, which the committee of management thinks necessary in the interest of institution. It was also held that committee of management is entitled to promote such teachers to the vacancies caused in L.T. grade, which is required to teach the subject, which the committee of management thinks necessary in the interest of institution. in paragraph 5 of the said judgment. Regulation 6 of Chapter II was quoted, which has already been referred to above and thereafter in paragraph 6, it was held as under: The interpretation of this provision came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court B.P. Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 1985 UPLBEC 669, it was held by the court that the expression...for teaching subject in which the teacher...in L.T. grade is required "cannot be read as "for teaching the subject, which was being taught by teacher, whose vacancy is to be filled." It is thus clear that the committee of management is entitled to promote such teacher to the vacancy caused in L.T. grade, who is required to teach the subject, which committee of management, thinks necessary in the Interest of Institution. 12. In view of the aforesaid decision, I am unable to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that only teachers, who had five years teaching experience in the subject in question are to be promoted and not others. 13. I have also gone through the provisions of Section 16F of the Act and Regulations mentioned in Chapter III of Regulations referred to above by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. I am of the view that Section 16F of the Act and said Regulations (which have already been deleted) are not relevant for the purposes of the present case, as they deal with the recruitment of the teachers and not with the promotion from L.T. grade to lecturer grade. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.