D. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) THE order dated 10. 12. 1996 dismissing the writ petition in default has been sought to be recalled. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner Shri R. K. Jain and Miss. Aru Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. ( 3 ) THE grounds made out appears to be sufficient. The order dated 10. 12. 1996 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its file. ( 4 ) BY consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. ( 5 ) BY order dated 26. 6. 1987, opposite party No. 4 was promoted to the post of Lecturer in history in the concerned school. This order has been challenged by the petitioner. ( 6 ) MR. R. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the said order on the ground that the post which was filled up by promotion pursuant to the said order is a post subject to be filled up by direct recruitment. Secondly, the respondent No. 4 was not qualified for the post when the vacancy occurred and as such the respondent No. 4 could not have been promoted to the said post. He relied on Regulation 4. Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and points out that promotion can be given to a teacher having five years experience of teaching in the subject and that he happens to be the seniormost teacher as on the date of the occurrence of the vacancy. In case there are no eligible candidates for such promotion, the post is to be filled up by direct recruitment. He also contends that in 1977, the respondent No. 4 also did not have academic qualification. ( 7 ) MISS Anu Jaiswal, holding the brief of Mr. A. K. Yog, on the other hand, contends that the post which fell vacant in 1977 and lapsed and was surrendered by implication. In 1982, by an order dated 10th February, 1982. which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the post of Lecturer in history was created by the Government. The petitioner obtained the academic qualification of m. A. in History in 1981. Therefore, in 1987, when the respondent No. 4 was promoted, he had completed five years experience in the subject in L. T. grade. which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the post of Lecturer in history was created by the Government. The petitioner obtained the academic qualification of m. A. in History in 1981. Therefore, in 1987, when the respondent No. 4 was promoted, he had completed five years experience in the subject in L. T. grade. Admittedly he is the senior-most teacher having been appointed in L. T. grade in 1973, while the petitioner was promoted to the post of L. T. grade in 1979. She also contends that in the order for creation of the post, it was mentioned that the same is to be filled up by promotion. In that view of the matter, according to her, the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition. ( 8 ) I have heard Mr. R. K. Jain and Miss Anu Jaiswal at length. ( 9 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner was promoted to the L. T. grade post in History in 1979 while the respondent No. 4 was appointed in the L. T. grade in 1973. It is also admitted that the vacancy occurred in 1977 when the respondent No. 4 did not have five years service in his credit in L. T. grade. At the same time, the respondent No. 4 was a teacher in Mathematics (Science) and did not possess the academic qualification for being promoted in the post so fell vacant in subject of history. But then it is also to be noted that when the post had fallen vacant, the petitioner was not in the L. T. grade and he having been appointed in 1979 in the L. T. grade, namely, after two years from the occurrence of the vacancy. the petitioner cannot claim any right in respect of promotion to the post of Lecturer in History which had fallen vacant in 1977. If the petitioner claims such right, in that event, he does not come within the qualification laid down in regulation 6, Chapter 11 of the said Regulations, therefore, he cannot claim any locus-standi to maintain the writ petition in respect of any promotion against the said post which had fallen vacant in 1977. ( 10 ) IT is also admitted that the respondent No. 4 had acquired the academic qualification in 1981. Though Mr. Jain had disputed the creation of the post in 1982 (by the order dated 10th February. 1982. ( 10 ) IT is also admitted that the respondent No. 4 had acquired the academic qualification in 1981. Though Mr. Jain had disputed the creation of the post in 1982 (by the order dated 10th February. 1982. Annexure-1) and claimed that it is the continuation of the 1977 post. It appears that there has been a creation of the post in respect whereof in 1987 the promotion is being granted in terms of the order of the creation of the post itself. The respondent No. 4 did possess the academic qualification and the experience and was senior to the petitioner. If this position is accepted in that event, also, the petitioner cannot claim any right above the respondent No. 4. ( 11 ) MR. Jains contention could be accepted only if it is held that the post fell vacant in 1977, continued to remain vacant and was liable to be filled up by direct recruitment, then only he can claim to have right to be considered for the purpose of filling up such post through direct recruitment. It is only a chance through which the petitioner isclaimed to be considered in 1987 or in 1982, as the case may be, but then no advertisement having been issued for filling up the said post through direct recruitment, since in the absence of eligible candidate by virtue of regulation 20, the said post is deemed to have been lapsed or surrendered. If Mr. Jains contention is to be accepted that 1977 vacancy is continuing then in 1977, the petitioner having not been in L. T. grade and the respondent No. 4 having not been qualified for promotion, the post ought to have been filled up through direct recruitment. No advertisement for filling up the said post through direct recruitment had been issued. Admittedly by reason of the impact of the regulation 20, the said post would be deemed to have been surrendered and are lapsed. ( 12 ) THUS it renders support to the creation of the post by order dated 10th February. 1982, admittedly on the facts In the absence of any qualified candidates, the vacancy could not be filled up by promotion. Therefore, Regulation 20 having come into play, the post was rightly created on 10th February, 1982. The said creation of the post had not been challenged in this writ petition. 1982, admittedly on the facts In the absence of any qualified candidates, the vacancy could not be filled up by promotion. Therefore, Regulation 20 having come into play, the post was rightly created on 10th February, 1982. The said creation of the post had not been challenged in this writ petition. Since it has been mentioned in the said order for creation of the post that post is to be filled up by promotion. This Court cannot go beyond the same. Therefore, the post is likely to be filled up by promotion. Here in that event, the petitioner also cannot lay his claim because of the admitted position as reflected above. ( 13 ) IN that view of the matter, I am unable to agree with the persuasive arguments of Mr. Jain. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. .