S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and order passed by a learned single Judge in WP no. 25821 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent herein claiming inter alia for the following reliefs : to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of rules g. O. Rt. No. 972 Higher Education (CE. III) Department, dated 13-12-2000 and issue a consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in the aided post of Junior Lecturer in Maths in the 3rd respondent College in terms of proceedings Rc. No. G3/103/2000 dated 18-11-2000 of the 2nd respondent was allowed. ( 2 ) BY order dated 13-12-2000 of the 2nd respondent, impugned in the writ application, the appellant herein was appointed as Junior Lecturer in Mathematics in the vacant aided post in 4th respondent-College. He was initially appointed as a temporary Lecturer on 8-9-1993 purported to be on the ground that the permanent incumbent therein had been absenting unauthorisedly. Subsequently, the services of the permanent incumbent were terminated and in the resultant vacancy the appellant was appointed as Junior lecturer in Mathematics as an unaided incumbent alleged to be by proceedings dated 19-2-1998 of the 4th respondent herein, copy of which, however, was not filed either before the learned single Judge or before us. The 3rd respondent declined to approve the said appointment on the ground that the selection of the appellant was illegal as the authorised representative of the Board of Intermediate Education did not participate in the Selection Committee meeting. However, subsequently the same was ratified by the 3rd respondent purported to by the proceedings 9-10-2000 subject to the condition that thereby the appellant herein would not get any right of promotion in an aided post which may be filled up in future. ( 3 ) THE writ petitioner-1st respondent herein was appointed as School Assistant in mathematics in the school run by the same management on 15-6-1976. By reason of g. O. Ms. No. 12, dated 10-1-1992, administrative rules for selection of Lecturers in Private Degree and Junior Colleges were prescribed. ( 3 ) THE writ petitioner-1st respondent herein was appointed as School Assistant in mathematics in the school run by the same management on 15-6-1976. By reason of g. O. Ms. No. 12, dated 10-1-1992, administrative rules for selection of Lecturers in Private Degree and Junior Colleges were prescribed. A channel of promotion was also provided by the State Government to the post of Junior Lecturer in Private colleges from the categories of School assistants, SGBT Assistants and non-teaching staff working in educational institutions under the same Management by reason of G. O. Ms. No. 203, dated 18-6-1999. The relevant portion of the said G. O. Ms. reads thus: the Government after detailed examination and careful consideration of the matter hereby direct that the School assistants/sgbt Assistants and non -teaching staff working under the private Schools/junior Colleges under the private Management be considered for promotion as Junior Lecturers in the junior Colleges of the same private management, if they are fully qualified and possess 50% marks in Post-Graduate in the relevant subject, in the following order of priority, i. e. , to consider first school assistants for promotion as Junior lecturer and if no qualified and suitable candidate is there in the School Assistant category then to consider the SGBT assistant and if no such persons are available then promote non-teaching staff in Ministerial Service. If no qualified person is available in any of the categories viz. , School Assistants/sgbt Assistant/ non-teaching staff in Ministerial Service, the Management is permitted to go for direct recruitment for filling the vacancies of Junior Lecturers in the College. The selection Committee constituted in G. O. Ms. No. 1119, dated 22-3-1991 can be the Selection Committee for considering promotions of the categories of persons mentioned above for a private Junior college. A minimum service of two years is prescribed in the feeder category for becoming eligible for promotion as junior Lecturer. ( 4 ) IN terms of the aforementioned g. O. Ms. No. 203, dated 18-6-1999, the name of the 1 st respondent herein for promotion to the post of Junior Lecturer was proposed. The Management sought for the permission of the State to nominate its representative to the Selection Committee for consideration of the case of the 1st respondent. Such permission was accorded in terms of the proceedings dated 18-11-2000 of the 3rd respondent. The Management sought for the permission of the State to nominate its representative to the Selection Committee for consideration of the case of the 1st respondent. Such permission was accorded in terms of the proceedings dated 18-11-2000 of the 3rd respondent. The Selection committee although was scheduled to meet on 16-12-2000, but the same could not meet on the said date. However, in the meantime, the impugned G. O. Rt. No. 972, dated 13-2-2000 was issued in terms whereof the appellant herein had been appointed to the aided vacant post of Junior lecturer in 4th respondent College. And further more the Director of Intermediate education - 3rd respondent herein had been requested to take appropriate action thereupon. ( 5 ) THE 1st respondent filed the writ petition questioning the said order dated 13-12-2000. The learned single Judge while allowing the writ petition directed the official respondents to hold a selection in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 203 dated 10-6-1999 holding that the appellant herein did not have any legal entitlement thereto. ( 6 ) MR. Rama Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, however, submitted that by reason of the afore-mentioned G. O. Ms. No. 203, dated 18-6-1999, the other mode of appointment available to the Management had not been excluded. In this connection, our attention has been drawn to a letter dated 9-10-2000 issued by the Board of Intermediate education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad which reads thus: in the reference cited, the appointment of Sri B. S. B. G. Tilak, as J. L. in Maths (unaided) in your College was not considered for approval of the Board of Intermediate Education since the selection was made without the presence of the authorised Board of Intermediate education nominee at the Selection committee meeting. In the reference (cited supra), the incumbent has requested to consider his case and approve his appointment. The Chairman Board of Intermediate education, A. P. , Hyderabad is pleased to ratify the selection of Sri B. S. B. G. Tilak as Junior Lecturer in Maths (unaided) in your College and approve his appointment with immediate effect. It is also informed that this approval of appointment in unaided post will not entitle any right to the incumbent for absorption into any aided post in future. It is also informed that this approval of appointment in unaided post will not entitle any right to the incumbent for absorption into any aided post in future. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel would contend that the matter relating to appointment of Lecturers in a Junior College is covered by two statutes, namely A. P. College service Commission Act, 1985 (for short act, 1985 ) as also the Andhra Pradesh intermediate Education Act, 1971 (for short act, 1971 ). G. O. Ms. No. 203 which has been issued by way of executive instructions must give way to the former. The learned Counsel would contend that in terms of the provisions of Act, 1985 as also Act, 1971, there exists a provision for direct recruitment and thus although the source of recruitment might have been wrong, however, the appointment of the appellant cannot be said to be an illegal one. According to the learned Counsel, the appointment of the appellant having been ratified by the Director of Intermediate education, no fault therewith could be found. ( 8 ) IT was next contended that as the management had formulated the process of recruitment in a manner which was thought fit and proper by it, in relation whereto the appellant had no knowledge, he applied therefor and was selected. The learned single Judge, therefore, erred in holding that the appointment of the appellant was bad in law. ( 9 ) MR. SITARAMAMURTHY, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner submitted that the contention of the appellant that the field is occupied by the two enactments supra had not been raised before the learned single judge. The learned Counsel would submit that Act, 1985 has no application in relation to a private College. The learned Counsel would contend that Act, 1971 deals with only the standard and syllabi in relation to various Intermediate courses and not with the recruitment procedure to the post of junior Lecturer. The learned Counsel would further submit that the selection of the teaching staff in a privately managed institution was being governed under several gos issued by the Government prescribing the procedure therefor. It was pointed out that the appellant herein did not file any application for appointment and thus he cannot be said to be a validly appointed person. In any event, he cannot claim any right to be appointed in an aided post. It was pointed out that the appellant herein did not file any application for appointment and thus he cannot be said to be a validly appointed person. In any event, he cannot claim any right to be appointed in an aided post. It was also submitted that there does not exist any law in terms whereof an appointment can be made by way of transfer from an unaided post to an aided post and thus the said method of recruitment being impermissible, G. O. Ms. No. 972 must be held to be illegal. ( 10 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Higher Education submitted that permission for filling up of the post has to be obtained. According to the learned government Pleader, by reason of G. O. Ms. No. 203, a policy decision has been evolved, pursuant whereto, recruitment has to be made on the basis of the qualifications held by the candidates as on the date the permission was obtained. ( 11 ) ACT, 1985 was enacted to provide for constitution of a Commission for the selection of teachers for appointment to posts in Colleges and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Although by reason of the provisions of Act, 1985 and the rules framed thereunder, a Junior lecturer of Degree and Junior Colleges comes within the purview thereof and in relation whereto, the qualifications for holding the post of Junior Lecturer as also the mode of recruitment had been laid down, in view of the definitions of college and junior College of Sections 2 (4) and 2 (9) of Act, 1971 read with Section 2 (iv) of act, 1985 whereby a private College whether receiving aid from Government or not has been specifically excluded from the provisions of Act, 1985, by reason of act 25 of 1990, in our opinion, the said act and the rules made thereunder cannot be held to be applicable so far as the recruitment of a Lecturer in a Junior college under the private Management is concerned. ( 12 ) ACT, 1971 was enacted to provide for the establishment of a Board to regulate and supervise the system of Intermediate education in the State of Andhra Pradesh and to specify the courses of study therefor and for matters connected therewith. ( 12 ) ACT, 1971 was enacted to provide for the establishment of a Board to regulate and supervise the system of Intermediate education in the State of Andhra Pradesh and to specify the courses of study therefor and for matters connected therewith. junior College has been defined in section 2 (9) of Act, 1971 to mean any educational institution in the State and affiliated to the Board as providing courses of study qualifying students for admission to the Intermediate examination, in accordance with the regulations, but not the degree examinations of a University. In terms of the provisions of Section 9 (l) (iii) of the Act, 1971, the Board of Intermediate education, may, subject to the directions as may be given by the Government in this behalf and other provisions of the act, lay down the qualifications of teachers required to teach the subjects included in the courses of study in different branches of the Intermediate education, the work load of such teachers and the number of working days in an academic year or semester and other matters incidental thereto. Section17 of the said Act provides for a rule making power to the Government. Our attention has not been drawn to any other provisions of Act, 1971 or rules made thereunder to show that even in terms thereof, any procedure for recruitment of Lecturers in Junior Colleges has been prescribed. ( 13 ) IT is not in dispute that the 3rd respondent institution is a Junior College with High School Sections also. The State government issued orders in G. O. Ms. No. 12, dated 10-1-1992 prescribing the selection procedure for appointment of lecturers/junior Lecturers in private degree and Junior Colleges in the State and also laying down the requisite qualifications for recruitment of Lecturers in the concerned subjects. Yet again by orders dated 18-6-1999 the State Government issued g. O. Ms. No. 203 in terms whereof G. O. Ms. No. 12 was amended. By reason of the provisions of the said G. O. Ms. No. 203, the categories of School Assistants, and SGBTs working in the Private Schools/junior colleges and non-teaching posts coming under the ministerial service under the private schools/colleges were made as feeder categories for promotion to the category of junior Lecturers. In G. O. Ms. No. 12 was amended. By reason of the provisions of the said G. O. Ms. No. 203, the categories of School Assistants, and SGBTs working in the Private Schools/junior colleges and non-teaching posts coming under the ministerial service under the private schools/colleges were made as feeder categories for promotion to the category of junior Lecturers. In G. O. Ms. No. 203, it was clearly directed that, only in absence of qualified and suitable candidates in the high School section, direct recruitment to the category of Junior Lecturers could be resorted to. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent herein was qualified and eligible to be appointed to the category of Junior lecturer in Mathematics in terms of the provisions of G. O. Ms. No. 203. It is further not in dispute that although the 3rd respondent send the proposals to the 2nd respondent herein for promoting the 1st respondent as Junior Lecturer as far back on 24-9-1999, no action thereto had been taken. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent filed a representation on 5-1-2000 before the 2nd respondent for considering his case in terms of the aforementioned GO. , whereof, a direction had been issued by the said authority to the 3rd respondent by letter dated 10-1-2000 to consider his case. ( 14 ) IT has also not been disputed that the 4th respondent herein requested the 3rd respondent to accord permission for filling up of the post of Junior Lecturer in mathematics on 27-1 -2000 in terms of the said G. O. Ms. No. 203 and to nominate a person for participating in the meeting to be held by the Selection Committee. It further remains undisputed that the 3rd respondent herein had issued proceedings dated 18-11-2000 according permission to fill up the posts of Junior Lecturers. In terms of the said memo, the District vocational Education Officer, Guntur was nominated as Director s nominee in the selection Committee. Although the selection Committee was scheduled to meet on 6-12-2000, for some reason or the other, it could not meet and, in the meantime, the appellant was appointed as junior Lecturer in March, 1999 in an unaided vacancy. It is really appalling to note that even the offer of appointment made to the appellant had not been produced before the learned single Judge. It is really appalling to note that even the offer of appointment made to the appellant had not been produced before the learned single Judge. ( 15 ) THE Board of Intermediate education, however, declined to grant approval for appointment of the appellant inter alia on the ground that Selection committee did not contain the authorised nominee in terms of the proceedings dated 6-8-1999, whereof a representation had been made by the appellant on 10-7-2000 to the Board. Only thereafter, the recruitment of the appellant herein was ratified on 9-10-2001 subject to the condition that such approval of appointment in unaided post would not entitle him for selection in an aided post in future. ( 16 ) THE appellants representation dated 10-10-2000 seeking for absorption in the aided post of Junior Lecturer, Mathematics resulted in issuance of G. O. Rt. No. 972, dated 13-12-2000. There had been no sanction to the unaided post of Junior Lecturer for the academic year 1999-2000. The reliance placed on G. O. Ms. No. 145, education Department, dated 7-3-2000 and G. O. Rt. No. 720, Education, dated 6-10-2000 by the learned Counsel for the appellant appears to be misplaced as they did not deal with the composite Colleges of intermediate and High School Sections. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that the State took a policy decision, in exercise of its power under article 162 of the Constitution of India, laying down the conditions for appointment of Lecturers in Junior Colleges. The mode of recruitment having been laid down by the State in those orders, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant now to contend that the said policy decision has no application in the present case. Para 5 of g. O. Ms. No. 203, dated 18-6-1999 was issued in modification of G. O. Ms. No. 12, dated 10-1-1992. ( 17 ) PRIORITIES having been fixed by reason of para 5 of G. O. Ms. No. 203, evidently, the same must be applied as having the force of law. We may also notice that a similar provision being sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of punjab State Agricultural marketing Board (Class I) Service Rules, 1988 came up for consideration before the Apex Court in s. S. Sodhi v. State of Punjab, AIR 1990 sc 1064 . No. 203, evidently, the same must be applied as having the force of law. We may also notice that a similar provision being sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of punjab State Agricultural marketing Board (Class I) Service Rules, 1988 came up for consideration before the Apex Court in s. S. Sodhi v. State of Punjab, AIR 1990 sc 1064 . Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the said rules has been noticed by the Apex court in paragraph 5 of the reported judgment. The Apex Court held: 5. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules provides as under:" (8) Method of recruitment and qualifications: (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (4) appointment to the service shall be made in the manner specified in appendix b : provided that if no suitable candidate is available for appointment by promotion to a post in the service, such post shall be filled in by direct appointment or by transfer, as the appointing authority may decide in this behalf. The proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 stipulates that in the matter of appointment to a post governed by the Rules the appointing authority will first consider the candidates who are eligible for such appointment by promotion and if no suitable candidate is available for such appointment by promotion then the post may be filled in by direct appointment or by transfer as the appointing authority may decide in this behalf Shri J. K. Sibal, the learned Counsel for the Board and respondent No. 4, has not been able to show that the said proviso has a different meaning. The contention of Sri Sibal is that before the appointment of respondent No. 4 on the post of Manager Marketing the Board has considered the appellant and he was not found suitable for promotion to the said post. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view of the High Court that inspite of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 8 it was open to the appointing authority to fill up the post of Manager Marketing by any of three methods of recruitment viz. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view of the High Court that inspite of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 8 it was open to the appointing authority to fill up the post of Manager Marketing by any of three methods of recruitment viz. , (i) by direct appointment; (ii) by promotion or (iii) by transfer and that it was not necessary for the appointing authority to first consider the claim of the departmental candidates for promotion and go to other modes of recruitment only when such departmental candidate for promotion was not available. " ( 18 ) IN view of the above decision of the Apex Court, it is not open to the unofficial respondents to fill up the post of junior Lecturer in 4th respondent College by direct recruitment when suitable candidates are available for promotion. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner-1st respondent herein who was working as school Assistant in Maths since 15-6-1976 is fully qualified to hold the post of Junior lecturer. ( 19 ) THE appointment of the appellant herein having not been made in terms of the statutory rules and furthermore the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India having been violated, as evident from the facts as noticed hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is unassailable. The appellant herein had no right in terms of the afore-mentioned condition mentioned in the ratification order or otherwise to be appointed by transfer from unaided post to aided post. ( 20 ) IN this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the purported appointment of the 1st respondent was not in accordance with law. ( 21 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, we find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.