JUDGMENT Hon’ble D.P. Singh, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. None appears for the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 even in the revised list. However, I have perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 2. This petition is directed against an order dated 30.6.1993 by which the claim of the petitioner for being recommended for promotion to the Lecturers grade has been turned down by the District Inspector of Schools. 3. Bajaj Rashtriya Inter College, Fatehpur Sikri is a duly recognized and aided intermediate institution wherein the petitioner was appointed as an L.T. grade teacher on 9.8.1973 after due approval of the District Inspector of Schools. The respondent No. 7, Shri Amarmath Tiyagi was also appointed as L.T. grade teacher on 23.8.1978. Shri Shikar Chandra Jain, a permanent Lecturer in Civics retired on 30.6.1994 causing a substantive vacancy and which vacancy fell in the 50% quota of promotion. The Committee of Management considered the case of the petitioner as well as Shri Amar Nath Tiyagi, but finding that the petitioner was senior, passed a resolution dated 10.7.1994 recommending for promotion of the petitioner. However, the District Inspector of Schools on the strength of sub clause (2) of Regulation 6 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediation Education Act, held that since Shri Tiyagi had more experience in the subject of Civics, thus recommended his name for promotion. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that after promulgation of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1983 were framed and Rule 9 mandates that seniority is the criterion for promotion and thus by operation of Section 32 of the Act, Regulation 6, sub-clause (2) will not apply. Sub clause (2) of Regulation 6 reads as under : “Selection for promotion to the various higher grade shall be made on the basis of service standing, achievements in service, academic qualification and integrity.” Sub rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Commission Rules reads as under : “The criterion for promotion shall be seniority subject to the rejection of unfit.” 5. There is repugnancy between the two rules and as such in view of Section 32 of the Act, the Commission Act would prevail and, therefore, the District Inspector of Schools was not justified in granting the benefit of Regulation 6 to the respondent No. 7. 6. For the reasons given above, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.6.1993 is hereby quashed. The District Inspector of Schools and the Commission are hereby directed to forthwith take consequential action in the case of the petitioner. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed. ———