Judgment Shashank Kr.Singh, J. 1. The present appeal arises out of C.W.J.C. No. 1835 of 1997 disposed of on 27.8.1997, by which learned writ court did not interfere in the order contained in memo no. 368 dated 7.2.1997 passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur, whereby under the orders of the District Education Officer, Bhagalpur Smt. Shail Kumari has been promoted as headmistress of Marwari Kanya Pathshla, Shujaganj, Bhagalpur and the promotion granted to the petitioner- appellant vide memo no. 1722 dated 10.7.1996 has been cancelled. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is as to whether Bihar Nationalised Primary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993 which was published in Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary Issue) on 9 July, 1993 by which the minimum qualification for the post of headmaster/headmistress was raised to Postgraduate degree, was applicable in the present case as the petitioner-appellant had been appointed initially in the year 1992 when the managing committee was the competent authority for making such appointments. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that it is not in dispute that the initial appointment of the petitioner-appellant was much earlier to that of Smt. Shail Kumari, Respondent no. 7. Petitioner-appellant was initially appointed as Matric Trained Assistant Teacher in the aforesaid school by the Managing Committee being duly approved by the District Education Officer, Bhagalpur, with effect from 4.1.1971. On 23.7.1981 she was promoted by the Managing Committee as I.A. Trained Assistant Teacher which was approved by the District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur. The post of Headmistress fell vacant and the petitionerappellant who was the senior most teacher was promoted by the Managing Committee with intimation to the District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur on 24.2.1992 for approval. The approval was granted by him vide letter no. 1722 dated 10.7.1996 with effect from 4.2.1992. Now aforesaid order has been cancelled on 7.2.1997 on the ground that she did not have the requisite minimum qualification of Postgraduate trained. 3. it is not in dispute that the aforesaid qualification for appointment as Headmistress was enhanced in view of coming into force of Bihar Nationalised Primary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993. The aforesaid Rule was published in Bihar Gazette as already stated above on 9 July, 1993. Before coming into force of the aforesaid Rules the petitioner-appellant was qualified and she possessed the minimum requisite qualification for promotion/appointment as headmistress. The aforesaid Rule was published in Bihar Gazette as already stated above on 9 July, 1993. Before coming into force of the aforesaid Rules the petitioner-appellant was qualified and she possessed the minimum requisite qualification for promotion/appointment as headmistress. As the approval has been granted vide letter dated 10.7.1996 the only question which is required to be decided is as to whether the 1993 Rules would be applicable in the case of the petitioner-appellant or the Rules earlier thereto. 4. Counsel for the appellant states that as the vacancy was in the year 1992 itself, the petitioner/appellant had been appointed by the competent authority in the year 1992 and the approval has also been granted with effect from 4.2.1992 the consideration had to be as per the Rules pertaining at the time when the vacancy had occurred and the petitioner/appellant was appointed or from which date the approval had been granted. 5. Counsel tor the respondent no. 7, on the other hand, contends that as the approval has been granted on 10.7.1996 and new Rules had already come into effect though the respondent no. 7 was admittedly junior to the petitioner-appellant but as the petitioner-appellant did not possess the minimum qualification that is of Postgraduate Trained Teacher, her promotion as headmistress has rightly been cancelled and the respondent no. 7 appointed on the aforesaid post as she was the senior most eligible teacher having the Postgraduate degree. A further contention has been made that the approval had been given by the District Education Officer, Bhagalpur who was not the competent authority as on the recommendation of the Managing Committee it was the District Superintendent of Education who should have given approval and as no such approval is there, the appointment of the petitioner-appellant was bad and as such, learned writ court rightly did not interfere in the order of the cancellation of the promotion of the appellant to the post of Headmistress. 6. From the orders impugned it is not in dispute that the petitioner-appellant was initially appointed as Matric Trained Assistant Teacher on 4.1.1971 much before the respondent no. 7 Shail Kumari had joined the school in question as Assistant Teacher. 6. From the orders impugned it is not in dispute that the petitioner-appellant was initially appointed as Matric Trained Assistant Teacher on 4.1.1971 much before the respondent no. 7 Shail Kumari had joined the school in question as Assistant Teacher. Petitioner-appellant being the senior most teacher had been discharging the duties as the Headmistress being duly appointed by the competent authority in the year 1992, even the approval which has been given is from 1992 that is before coming into force of 1993 Rules. The eligibility of a candidate has to be seen/reckoned from the date when the vacancy occurred or the first appointment was made. If the vacancy was of the year 1992, the Rules pertaining In the year 1992 will prevail. If the petitioner-appellant was qualified on the aforesaid date to be considered for appointment as Headmistress her appointment could not be subsequently challenged or cancelled by the authorities on the ground that the subsequent Rule which has come into force prescribes a higher qualification for the aforesaid post. As the petitioner-appellant had been appointed with effect from 4.2.1992 on which date she was duly qualified her appointment cannot be quashed on the ground of not having the minimum qualification. The appeal also has to succeed on the further contention of the counsel for the appellant that the aforesaid order i.e. order granting approval to the appointment of the appellant as Headmistress which vested interest in the petitioner-appellant could not be taken away without providing an opportunity of hearing to her. 7. Taking these two aspects into consideration we are of the considered opinion that the order of learned writ court is erroneous and required to be interfered- with. The Letters Patent Appeal succeeds and the order passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur as contained in memo no. 368 dated 7.2.1997 is quashed and the petitioner-appellant shall be deemed to be continuing as the Headmistress pursuant to her appointment vide memo no. 1722 dated 10.7.1996 with effect from 4.2.1992. 8. The Letters Patent Appeal succeeds and is allowed to this extent indicated above. No. cost. Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 9 I agree.