B. S. CHAUHAN, J. ( 1 ) THE present Special Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 9th September, 1994 passed in writ petition No. 21389 of 1990, by which the learned Single Judge has rejected the claim of the appellant for the promotion to the post of L. T. grade with effect from 1-1-1990. ( 2 ) THE factual gamut of the case reveals that the appellant was appointed in C. T. grade on ad hoc basis on 19-10-1982 under the pro visions of Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 read with the provisions of U. P. Secondary Education Service and Selection Board Act, 1982, (hereinafter called the Act No. 5 of 1982 ). The appellant joined the service on 22-10-1982 and he was regularised on the said post under the provisions of Section 33-A of the Act No. 5 of 1982 with effect from 12-1-1986. On 1-1-1990 a short term vacancy came into existence as one Shri satyadeo Singh, an L. T. grade teacher was promoted as lecturer. The appellant claimed that he should be promoted in the L. T. grade, as the respondent No. 2 did not favour the appellant he filed the representation before the respondents No. 1 and 3. As the appellant could not succeed even before them, he preferred the writ petition No. 21389 of 1990 before this Court. During the pendency of the said writ petition before this Court the respondent No. 4 was directly appointed as a teacher in L. T. grade in the subject of Economics on 23-10-1990. The appellant-petitioner amended the writ petition challenging the appointment of respondent No. 4 also. In the meantime the appellant was also promoted to L. T. grade with effect from 1-9-1991. The issue agitated by the appellant before the learned Single Judge had been whether appellant was entitled for promotion on the vacancy which occurred in the subject of Economics in spite of the fact that the appellant was not C. T. grade teacher in the said subject. The learned Single Judge rejected the claim of the appellant holding that none of the teacher in the institution was eligible to be promoted in L. T. grade vacancy in Economics, thus the respondent No. 1 was right to appoint the respondent No. 4 by direct recruitment. Hence this appeal. The learned Single Judge rejected the claim of the appellant holding that none of the teacher in the institution was eligible to be promoted in L. T. grade vacancy in Economics, thus the respondent No. 1 was right to appoint the respondent No. 4 by direct recruitment. Hence this appeal. ( 3 ) HEARD Shri S. P. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Dinesh Dwivedi and learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents. ( 4 ) THE controversy hinges on the interpretation of Regulation 6 (i) of Chapter II of the regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, (hereinafter called the Act of 1921) which reads as under : "6 (1) Where any vacancy in the lecturers grade or in the L. T. grade as determined under regulation 5, is to be filled by promotion, all teachers working in the L. T. grade or the 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 the vacancy shall be considered for promotion by the committee of Management without their having to apply the same provided they possess the prescribed minimum qualification for teaching the subject in which the teacher in the lecturers grade or in the L. T. grade is required. " ( 5 ) THE Regulation 6 clearly provides that the person claiming the promotion should possess minimum qualification for teaching the subject in which he is seeking the promotion. The qualification for teaching Economics as provided in Appendix a to the Regulations of Chapter ii in Item No. 6 provides as under : for High School (Class 9-10) (1) B. Sc. (Agri)with Economics as optionalsubjectortrained (2) B. Com. ortrained (3) B. A. witheconomics Trained ( 6 ) IT is the admitted case of the parties that the appellant did not possess the qualification required for the L. T. grade teacher in Economics as the appellant is B. Sc, B. T. C, Thus, the case of the appellant could not be considered by the respondent No. 2 for promotion. Shri Pandey urged that this is not the necessary requirment for the promotion from the C. T. grade to L. T. grade. ( 7 ) SHRI Pandey has placed reliance upon the case in B. P. Tripathi v. State of U. P. and Ors. , 1985 uplbec 669. Shri Pandey urged that this is not the necessary requirment for the promotion from the C. T. grade to L. T. grade. ( 7 ) SHRI Pandey has placed reliance upon the case in B. P. Tripathi v. State of U. P. and Ors. , 1985 uplbec 669. According to which the word "is required" as mentioned in Regulation 6 (1)means that the requirement of a teacher in the subject concerned. However, under the changed circumstances such condition may not necessarily be followed. The said judgment further empowers the Committee of Management under certain circumstances to consider the claim of a teacher for promotion even if the said teacher is not teaching the subject for which the vacancy is to be filled up. In the instant case there is allegation of mala fide against the committee of management and thus, in absence of any such plea it was open for the Committee of management to consider the interest of the students and decide whether the appellant could be promoted on the post or the vacancy could be filled up by direct recruitment. Thus, the above referred judgment does not help the appellant at all. ( 8 ) SHRI Pandey further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in patiram Pal v. District Inspector of Schools and Ors. , 1993 (1) UPLBEC 319, wherein the division Bench of this Court has categorically held that it is not necessary to promote the teacher of the same subject in which the vacancy is to be filled up. This Court after following the aforesaid judgment in B. P. Tripathi (Supra) held that it was upto the Committee of Management to decide as to whether a person of the other subject may be promoted or a person may be appointed by direct recruitment to fill up the vacancy in a particular subject as it may be necessary in the interest of the students, The Court observed as under : "there is no allegation of mala fide in the writ petition against any person. It is the Committee of management which has to take into consideration the strength of the students in particular subject, the qualification of the teacher concerned and the subjects which he can teach. It is the Committee of management which has to take into consideration the strength of the students in particular subject, the qualification of the teacher concerned and the subjects which he can teach. On the facts disclosed in the counter-affidavit it is clear that Shri R. L. Sharma was teaching Economics subject who was latter promoted as lecturer and on his post Shri Bhudeo Mishra was promoted in l. T. grade. Later on he was also promoted. In these circumstances the respondent No. 4 was appointed as L. T. grade teacher to teach Economics to the students of High School. " ( 9 ) AS in the instant case there is no allegation of mala fide what soever against the Committee of management or any other person, the Court cannot enter into the circumstances in which the committee of Management, respondent No. 2 has decided to fill up the vacancy by direct recruitment. The Court cannot give judicial review on the wisdom of the Committee of management and decided as to whether it was a fit case where the appellant could have been promoted or respondent No. 4 could have been appointed as the management might have been in the dire need of a person who was competent to teach the Economics subject. ( 10 ) THUS, in view of the above, we find no force in this appeal and hence it is dismissed. No order as to costs. .