JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 31.12.1997 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria, respondent No. 1, besides a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with his working as Lecturer in Hindi in the respondent-College. 3. A substantive vacancy of Lecturer in Hindi occurred on the retirement of one Shri Baijnath Singh on 1.1.1996. The Committee of Management passed a resolution on 17.7.1996 promoting one Sri Govind Tiwari, respondent No. 3, as Lecturer in Hindi. 4. The Court vide order dated 12.2.1998 stayed the operation of the order dated 31.12.1997 until further orders. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Hon’ble :Supreme Court decision rendered in U.P. Public Service Commission v. Alpana, 1994 (1) UPLBEC 242, wherein the apex Court relying upon the decision in the case of Dr. Raman Kumar Pandey v. Sukhram Pal Singh, 1995 (1) ESC 74 (All), held that the result of the examination date back to the examination to which it relates is no more valid as the decision of this Court laying down the principle has been over-ruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the teacher who had appeared in the examination will not relate back to declaration of the result. He has also relied upon the decisions reported in 1994 (1) UPLBEC 242 (para 2), 1995 (1) ESC 74 (paras 10, 11 and 12), 1997 (2) UPLBEC 81 (Keshar Ram Dargan v. D.I.O.S. Haridwar and others (para 6) and 1998 (1) AWC 377 (Iqramul Haq v. D.I.O.S., Allahabad and another). 6. In Iqramul Haq (supra) the petitioner had appeared in M. A. Final Year Examination prior to 30.6.1996 and his result was declared on 30.9.1996, i.e., subsequent to the occurrence of vacancy. The learned Single Judge of the Court held that lqramul Haq was not qualified on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. The Special Appeal filed by Iqramul Haq against the judgment of the learned Single Judge was also dismissed vide decision rendered in 2006 (1) ESC 299 (All). 7. The learned Single Judge of the Court held that lqramul Haq was not qualified on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. The Special Appeal filed by Iqramul Haq against the judgment of the learned Single Judge was also dismissed vide decision rendered in 2006 (1) ESC 299 (All). 7. Recently another judgment has been rendered in Shyam Narain Mishra v. D.I.O.S., 2006 (2) ESC 1145, in which it has been held that : "This controversy has already been decided by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Subhash Prasad v. Regional Selection Committee through its Chairman and others, 2004 (3) ESC 1385, wherein the Hon’ble Court rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that the eligibility is to be seen on the date when the recruitment process was initiated. Their Lordships further after examining the Rules held as under : “We are clearly of the opinion that taking into consideration the scheme underlying the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Rules of 1995 framed thereunder, it was obligatory to compute the five years’ continuous service on the first day of the year of recruitment which had to be taken to be that year of recruitment in which the vacancy was ascertained for being forwarded to the Commission through the Inspector ensuring that it reached the Inspector by 15th of July. The zone of consideration or the field of eligibility of eligible and suitable candidates cannot be permitted to be enlarged at the whim of the Committee of Management or get enlarged on account of its failure to either ascertain the vacancy or sent it to the Inspector in the manner prescribed or delay the action contemplating under Rule 14 (3) of the Rules of 1995.” Thus, the question involved in this appeal is no more res-integra and admittedly covered by the aforesaid Division Bench judgment..............In case the year of recruitment is allowed to reckon with reference to the date on which the management decide to proceed with the recruitment, that would make the year of recruitment to be uncertain and may confer arbitrary power upon the management to delay its decision in order to defeat the lawful claim of a teacher of the institution. In the absence of any provision suggesting to confer such authority on the management, it is always prudent to interpret a provision, which will prevent arbitrariness and undaunted discretion on the part of the authorities. Since the date of occurrence of vacancy is certain, the first day of July of such year would be the year of recruitment as it would prevent management from enlarging or deferring the year of recruitment in the manner it likes.” 8. The petitioner made representations dated 15.4.1997 and 18.4.1997 against the resolution dated 17.7.1996 passed by the Committee of Management as a result thereof the promotion of Sri Govind Tiwari as Lecturer in Hindi on 15.4.1997 was cancelled and the petitioner was promoted on the said post. The papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools for approval vide letter dated 18.4.1997 who granted approval to the promotion of Sri Govind Tiwari vide order dated 31.12.1997 instead of the petitioner. 9. The procedure for ad-hoc promotion of teachers is governed by the U.P. Secondary Service Commission Rules, 1995. Rule 16 of the aforesaid rules clearly provides that the teachers must possess the qualification prescribed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the Regulations made thereunder and should have put in at least 5 years continuous service on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. 10. It is alleged that respondent No. 3 was not qualified on the date of occurrence of vacancy. He was not M.A, in Hindi on 1.7.1996. He had appeared in M.A. Final Year Examination before 30.6.1996 and his result was declared on 14.7.1996, thus he was not qualified for the post on the date of vacancy, i.e., 1.7.1996. This fact has not been denied by Sri Govind Tiwari in his counter-affidavit. 11. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner .was granted appointment in L.T. Grade on 1.11.1975 and was allowed only 2/3rd pay scale as he was untrained teacher at the time of his appointment. The petitioner was granted regular L.T. Grade pay scale w.e.f. 31.5.1976 while on the .contrary respondent No. 3 was granted regular appointment in L.T. Grade on 7.8.1972, i.e., much earlier to the appointment of the petitioner and was appointed on probation period for one year after expiry of which respondent No. 3 was confirmed in L.T. Grade w.e.f. 7.8.1973. The petitioner was granted regular L.T. Grade pay scale w.e.f. 31.5.1976 while on the .contrary respondent No. 3 was granted regular appointment in L.T. Grade on 7.8.1972, i.e., much earlier to the appointment of the petitioner and was appointed on probation period for one year after expiry of which respondent No. 3 was confirmed in L.T. Grade w.e.f. 7.8.1973. The date of birth of the petitioner is 5.1.1953 while that of respondent No. 3 is 1.1.1947. Thus, respondent No. 3 is senior to the petitioner in the matter of appointment and confirmation as well as in age. He was senior-most teacher and for that reason he was rightly granted ad-hoc promotion to the post of Lecturer in Hindi in the respondent-College which was also approved by the District Inspector of Schools vide impugned order dated 31.12.1997 appended as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. 12. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the respondents that so far as qualification part is concerned it is admitted in paragraphs 21 and 26. of the writ petition that the vacancy had occurred on 1.7.1996 on the retirement of permanent incumbent Sri Baijnath Singh on 30.6.1996. It is further admitted in the writ petition that respondent No. 3 had already appeared in M.A. Final Examination of Hindi before occurrence of the vacancy on 1.7.1996 though the result was declared on 14.7.1996 and the marks sheet was issued by the Gorakhpur University on 15.7.1996. Respondent No. 3 was declared passed in Ilnd Division in M.A. (Hindi) Examination of the Gorakhpur University. 13. In Sangam Lal Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, (1990) 1 UPLBEC 706, it has been clearly held that irrespective of the date of declaration of result the date on which the last paper of the examination in which the candidate appeared would be the date of deemed possession of requisite qualification. 14. The last paper of M.A. Final Examination of Hindi was held on 30.3.1996 when the vacancy arose on 1.7.1996 and the result of M.A. (Hindi) Examination was declared on 14.7.1996 wherein he was declared passed in llnd Division. Thus, respondent No. 3 was possessing necessary qualification on the date of occurrence of vacancy and was thus qualified for the post according to relevant rules. 15. Thus, respondent No. 3 was possessing necessary qualification on the date of occurrence of vacancy and was thus qualified for the post according to relevant rules. 15. Sanskrit as one of the subjects at graduation level is not a requirement for promotion in case such teacher is appointed in L.T. Grade prior to 5.4.1975. According to Government notification dated 16.3.1979 those teachers appointed prior to 5.4.1975 for teaching High School classes according to regulations prevailing at that time if possessed other qualification in that event B.A. with Sanskrit is not necessary for the purposes of promotion to the post of Lecturer in Hindi for Intermediate classes. 16. Admittedly respondent No. 3 was appointed on regular basis in L.T. Grade on 7.8.1972, i.e., prior to 5.4.1975 according to notification dated 16.3.1979 B.A. with Sanskrit was not the requirement in case or promotion of respondent No. 3 to the post of Lecturer in Hindi. 17. The U.P. Secondary Education Service Rules, 1983 and the U.P. Secondary Education Service Rules, 1995 are applicable to the case under which 5 years’ continuous service in L.T. Grade besides possession of requisite qualification on the date of occurrence of the vacancy for promotion to the next higher grade is essential which were possessed by respondent No. 3. Thus, he was rightly promoted to the post of Lecturer in Hindi which was also approved by the District Inspector of Schools vide impugned order dated 31.12.1997. 18. The criteria laid down for promotion under the aforesaid rules is seniority subject to rejection of unfit. Since respondent No. 3 was appointed in L.T. Grade on 7.8.1972 he had more than 5 years continuous service in L.T. Grade in July 1996 when the promotion was made and was thus fully qualified for the post and was rightly granted ad-hoc promotion by the committee of management which was also approved by the D.I.O.S. 19. The averments made in paragraph 20 of the writ petition that the resolution of the committee of management dated 17.7.1996 regarding ad-hoc promotion of respondent No. 3 was revoked/cancelled have been denied by respondent No. 3 in paragraphs 19 and 22 of the counter-affidavit. 20. Respondent No. 3 after his appointment as Lecturer in Hindi continued and was paid his salary for the post for few months prior to passing of the interim order dated 12.2.1998 and thereafter the salary of respondent No. 3 was stopped. 21. 20. Respondent No. 3 after his appointment as Lecturer in Hindi continued and was paid his salary for the post for few months prior to passing of the interim order dated 12.2.1998 and thereafter the salary of respondent No. 3 was stopped. 21. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there is force in the contention raised by learned Counsel for the respondents and the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable and do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 22. Accordingly, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned orders under Article 226 of the Constitution. 23. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ————