D. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) PLEADINGS are complete and the counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition may be disposed of finally under the Rules of the Court. ( 2 ) HEARD counsel for the parties ( 3 ) THIS writ petition is directed against an order dated 18. 11. 1998 by which the appointment of respondent No. 3 as Assistant Teacher in the L. T. Grade has been approved. A further relief has been sought to treat the petitioner as a substantive Assistant Teacher in the C. T. Grade and to pay her the salary as such and consider her for grant of L. T. grade scale. ( 4 ) SMT. Sugra Begam Girls Inter College is a duly recognised Intermediate College (hereinafter referred to as the Institution) receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. A short term vacancy in the L. T. Grade was created due to grant of leave to the permanent incumbent with effect from 1. 7. 1987 to 30. 6. 1988. The petitioner was appointed on the said short term vacancy and which appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools vide his order dated 22. 5. 1989. It appears that this vacancy was converted into a substantive vacancy when the incumbent resigned and, therefore, the petitioner was not allowed to continue to work in the institution. She challenged the aforesaid action of the Management through Writ Petition No. 11619 of 1990 wherein a interim order was granted on 30. 7. 1990 and on the strength of the interim order she continued to function and receive her salary. After exchange of affidavits the writ petition was allowed vide order and judgment dated 11. 2. 1993. The Learned Single Judge came to conclusion that since a substantive vacancy had occurred, the Commission shall take steps for making regular appointment on the post and till such appointment the petitioner was allowed to continue and was entitled to her salary. In pursuance of the said order and judgment the petitioner was allowed to continue. Before any regular selection could be made by the commission, the Institution was declared a minority Institution vide declaration of the government dated 25. 1. 1996. In pursuance of the said order and judgment the petitioner was allowed to continue. Before any regular selection could be made by the commission, the Institution was declared a minority Institution vide declaration of the government dated 25. 1. 1996. When the Institution was declared a minority Institution, the management after intimation to the District Inspector of Schools appointed respondent No. 3 on the substantive post and this appointment was approved vide the impugned order passed by the d. I. O. S. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has urged that in pursuance of Section 33-B, which was brought in the statute book on 7. 8. 1993, the services of the petitioner stood regularized. ( 6 ) FROM a perusal of Section 33-B, it is apparent that at least three conditions are required for a candidate to be granted benefit under it. Firstly, the candidate should possess the qualification prescribed under, or is exempted from, such qualification in accordance with U. P. Intermediate education Act, 1921. Secondly, he has been continuously serving in the Institution from the date of such appointment up to the date of the commencement of the Second Amendment Act of 1992, and thirdly, he is not related to any member of the Management or Principal or headmaster and he has been found suitable and eligible for appointment in a substantive capacity by the Selection Committee constituted under Sub-section (2 ). suitability and eligibility has to be considered by a Selection Committee in consonance with Sub-section (1 ). Sub-section (4) provides that every Teacher so appointed in a substantive vacancy shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of such substantive appointment. Sub Section (5)provides that a Teacher who is not found suitable under Sub-section (1) Or a Teacher who is not eligible, he is not entitled to get a substantive appointment and he would case to hold the appointment on such date as the State Government may by order specify. ( 7 ) THE second condition for applicability of Section-33b is that the incumbent should be working from the date of appointment up till the amendment of the Section. The section was amended on 7. 8. ( 7 ) THE second condition for applicability of Section-33b is that the incumbent should be working from the date of appointment up till the amendment of the Section. The section was amended on 7. 8. 1993, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, it is alleged in paragraph 7 that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was never allowed to function as a teacher nor she was paid any salary. It is further alleged that only after the judgment of this court dated 11. 2. 1993, the petitioner was permitted to rejoin the Institution in pursuance of the order of the Regional Inspectors of Girls Schools, Agra dated 14. 1. 1994. In the said order, it was also stipulated that she would be entitled to salary from the date of her joining. It is further alleged that the petitioner was allowed to rejoin on 1. 2. 1994. The allegations made in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit have not been Specifically denied. Thus, it is apparent that on the date of enforcement of the amendment the petitioner was not working in the Institution and neither was receiving salary and as such the second requirement of the condition was lacking. ( 8 ) THE third requirement is that the candidate should be found suitable and eligible for appointment in a substantive capacity by the Selection Committee. From the section, it is apparent that the Selection Committee for the aforesaid purposes comprises of Regional Deputy director of Education as Chairman, an officer holding Group A Post in any Department other than Education, Regional Inspectors of Girls Schools and the Inspector of Schools of the District would be members. It is neither stated in the writ petition nor it has been contended across the bar that the petitioner ever faced the Regional Selection Committee for appointment on substantive basis. Thus, even the third condition is lacking in the case of the petitioner. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service the ratio of a Division bench of this Court rendered in the case of Rajkumar Verma and Anr. v. District Inspector of School Allahabad Civil J. 1231, to contend that the petitioner had a right to be considered for substantive appointment. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service the ratio of a Division bench of this Court rendered in the case of Rajkumar Verma and Anr. v. District Inspector of School Allahabad Civil J. 1231, to contend that the petitioner had a right to be considered for substantive appointment. The ratio in Rajkumars case (Supra) no doubt gives a right to the petitioner to be considered for substantive appointment, but in the judgment itself, it has been provided that the requisite conditions have to be fulfilled before the candidate can claim consideration. I have already examined the facts and found that the petitioner was lacking in two requisite conditions and, therefore, it cannot be said that the services of the petitioner stood automatically regularized. In my opinion argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is bound to be rejected. ( 10 ) IT has then been urged that this court through its order dated 11. 2. 1993 had directed that the petitioner would continue till regular selection is made by the Commission and, thus, the appointment could only be made by the Commission and since the appointment of respondent no. 3 was not made by the Commission, the impugned order dated 18. 11. 1998 should be quashed. The counsel further states that the Institution was recognised as a minority Institution only on 25. 1. 1996 and, therefore, the inaction of the Commission in not proceeding to make appointment, should not visit the petitioner with any civil consequences. It is worthy or not that when this court passed its judgment and order dated 11. 2. 1993 there was no issue before it as to whether the Institution was a minority Institution and as such the order was passed directing the commission to make appointment. Section 30 of the 1982 Act clearly stipulates that the provision of the Act would not apply to minority Institution. The Apex Court in the case of committee of Management, St. John Inter College, v. Girdhari Singh and Ors. 2001 Vol. 4 scc 296 has held to the aforesaid effect. Section 30 of the 1982 Act clearly stipulates that the provision of the Act would not apply to minority Institution. The Apex Court in the case of committee of Management, St. John Inter College, v. Girdhari Singh and Ors. 2001 Vol. 4 scc 296 has held to the aforesaid effect. The Apex Court has further held in N. Ammad v. EMJAY High School 1998 (6) SCC 674 that when a Institution is effectively recognised as a minority Institution, the declaration is only acceptance of the antecedents of the Institution and it cannot be said that only after the recognition, the Institution would be deemed a minority institution. In my view, even the second argument learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. ( 11 ) IN view of discussions hereinabove, this petition fails and dismissed but no order as to costs. . .