A. P. SINGH, J. This is plaintiffs ap peal under Section 100 Code of Civil Proce dure. The plaintiff was L. T. Grade Teacher in Jagat Singh Inter College Waharahpur, Parganasiyana, District Bulandshahr. 2. A post of Lecturer of Geography, along with two other posts in the Lecturer grade, was created by order of the Deputy Director of Education, dated 20th March, 1979. This order is paper No. 28- Ga, (Ex. A-2 ). The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: 3. A reading of the order of the Deputy Director of Education would show that ap proval for creation of the post was granted with effect from the date of the appoint ment on the post, whereas the order creat ing the post had been passed and issued on 20th March 1979. 4. Pursuant to the said order, Sri Shiv Kumar Sharma, respondent no. 3 was ap pointed by direct recruitment on 20. 2. 1980 after due approval having been received from the District Inspector of school under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Educa tion Act. 5. A suit was filed by the plaintiff on 20. 11. 1979 initially seeking an order of man datory injunction to the effect that the respondent-Managing Committee of the in stitution, in question, be directed to promote him on the post of Lecturer in Geography, on the post created vide order dated 20th March, 1979 by the Deputy Director of Education. 6. However, subsequently, the plaintiff amended the plaint and added the prayer for seeking declaration for annulment of the appointment order passed in favour of the respondent No. 3. He also impleaded the respondent No. 3 in the suit as defendant No. 3. 7. The Managing Committee, as well as, respondent No. 3 filed separate written statements. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the post was reserved for promotion of L. T. grade teachers and since he was the only teacher in the L. T. grade who was fully qualified for promotion on the post of Lec turer, he alone was entitled to be promoted. It was pleaded that the appointment by direct recruitment made in favour of the respondent No. 3 was illegal, which was li able to be set aside and direction was to be issued for grating him promotion. 8. It was pleaded that the appointment by direct recruitment made in favour of the respondent No. 3 was illegal, which was li able to be set aside and direction was to be issued for grating him promotion. 8. The case set up by the respondents, including respondent No. 3, inter alia, was that on the date the post was created, i. e. , 30. 3. 1979, the plaintiff-appellant was not qualified nor eligible for the promotion on the post of Lecturer of Geography, inas much as, he was not possessed of requisite educational qualifications prescribed by Regulation 6 of Chapter II, read with Ap pendix a of that Regulation, which provided in th, e qualification of Post Graduation in the subject concerned with high second division marks, which the plain tiff-appellant did not possess as he was then only a Graduate and not Post Graduate. 9. The Managing Committee, as well as the respondent No. 3 both contested the suit. It was pleaded by them that after the post was created, it was found that no teacher was eligible for promotion on the post. Therefore, the post was advertised, whereafter appointment of respondent No. 3 was made. 10. The question which must be ad dressed is whether the date of appointment of respondent No. 3 or the date on which the letter of the Deputy Director of Education was received by the College Management will be the date of vacancy. If the date on which vacancy arose is the date on which letter dated 20. 3. 1979 was issued then the appellant has no case because on that date he was admittedly fully qualified education ally and on the point or five years substan tive service to be promoted as Lecturer. 11. According to the appellant, the date on which the appointment was made was the date of creation of the post, which is quite apparent from the order of the Deputy Director of Education itself as per the note in column 6 of that orderand not the date when the order was issued. According to the respondents, the date for creation of the post will be the date on which the order dated 20. 3. 1979 was issued and received by the College authorities. According to the respondents, the date for creation of the post will be the date on which the order dated 20. 3. 1979 was issued and received by the College authorities. According to the learned counsel, for the purpose of payment of salary, under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971, special date on which the post will be deemed to have been created, mentioned in the order in column VI, is only to defeat claim for payment of salary for a period prior to the date of appointment as some one may set up a claim that he was already functioning and therefore, must be paid salary from the date, order was issued. 12. The trial Court accepted the con tention of the plaintiff-appellant, but the view so taken by the trial Court was set aside by the lower appellate Court on appeal filed by the defendant. The lower appellate Court placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Sri Param Hans Inter College v. Additional Director of Education and others, 1981 UPLBEC 50, it accordingly set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 13. Sri R. S. Misra, learned counsel for the appellant, in support of the case of plaintiff-appellant, contends that the view taken by the lower appellate Court is not correct as the same runs contrary to the express order of the Deputy Director of Education, whereby he had created the post. He further contends that the case law relied upon by the lower appellate Court too does not support the view, specially so when the situation which prevails in the present case was not found prevailing in the case on which reliance has been placed. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the two cases stand on different factual situationsand, therefore, no aid can be taken by the lower appellate Court from the view which has been expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in 1981 UPLBEC 50 (supra ). 14. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. I have considered the submis sions putforth before me by Sri Misra, learned counsel for the appellant, however, I find myself unable to agree with the same. 15. 14. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. I have considered the submis sions putforth before me by Sri Misra, learned counsel for the appellant, however, I find myself unable to agree with the same. 15. It is true that in Column 6, the relevant date for creation of the post as mentioned in the order dated 20th March, 1979, which has beenpassed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, it is the date on which appointment is made; but, that does not mean that there has been no creation of the post prior to the date of appoint ment. If there is no post in existence prior to the date of making of the appointment no appointment can, at all, be made. Before making appointment, the Management of the College is requiredjo undertake certain which are con-pointment, either by by direct recruitment. Recruitment can be made for appointment which has already been created and the post is available for making the appointment against a post lying vacant. 16. In the present case, though post creation order had been passedand the same was issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education on 20th March, 1979 but for some reason, it was to take effect from the date appointment on that post was made. As soon as the said order was passed and received by the Committee of Manage ment of the College, it was very much open for the Committee of Management to take immediate steps for filling up the post. It is not disputed that immediate steps were taken by the Committee of Management of the institution for filling up the vacancy, inasmuch as, advertisement for appoint ment had been issued in September, 1979 prior to the date when the plaintiff-appellants M. A. result had even been declared in the newspaper. The result of the examination of plaintiff was declared in September 1979, which was communicated to the Principal in the month of November, 1979 and before the communication could reach, the Principal, all proceedings for making appointment had already been completed. 17. In this view of the matter, it is not open for the plaintiff- appellant to contend that so long no appointment was made on the post there was no creation of the post. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is thoroughly misconceived. 17. In this view of the matter, it is not open for the plaintiff- appellant to contend that so long no appointment was made on the post there was no creation of the post. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is thoroughly misconceived. It is, no doubt, correct that the plaintiff-appel lant was possessed of the requisite ex perience of five years which is another re quirement for promotion on the post of Lecturer, but on account of appellant being not possessed of the requisite educational qualifications of M. A. Geography, he was not eligible for being promoted on the post of Lecturer in Geography on the date when the Committee of Management started proceedings for making appointment. The lower appellate Court rightly placed reliance on the case decided by the Division Bench of this Court which is reported in 1981uplbec 50 (supra ). I find no error in the judgment of the lower appellate Court and uphold the same. 18. The appeal is devoid of any merit, which is accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .