JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 who is the contesting respondent. 2. The appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 16.1.2007 whereby he has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. 3. The controversy in the matter relates to the appointment for the post of lecturer in Hindi in the Intermediate College at Moosa Nagar, District Kanpur Dehat. The appellant was appointed in the year 1972 in CT grade, subsequently he was given the LT grade and he claimed the vacancy arising out of the retirement of one Mr. Devi Dayal Pranami who retired on 30.6.1994. The management committee has appointed respondent No. 5 in that post who has been selected by the Selection Commission, and thus he has been appointed as a direct recruit. 4. The petitioner’s case is that this post was meant for promotees and that he had the requisite experience of five years. As far as the claim that the post should have been filled by promotion, he gave a chart containing those five posts in paragraph 8 of the writ petition. In that chart, he showed that out of the five posts, two posts for English and Sociology were meant for direct appointment. This averment in paragraph 8 has been contradicted by the management committee in its reply and has pointed out that as far as the post of lecturer in Sociology is concerned, the person concerned namely Brij Ballabh Chaurasia was appointed by promotion on 30.8.1973. The letter of approval by the District Inspector of Schools is annexed to the reply. 5. Out of the remaining four posts, the post of Economics had been directed to be filled by promotion. It is stated by the management that out of the five posts, the four posts of Hindi, Sanskrit, English and Sociology became available in February, 1971. Out of these four posts, two posts were meant for promotees and two for the direct recruit. As far as the post of Economics is concerned, it had become available only on 7.7.1973 and the officers of the Government while clearing that post, made it clear in the approval letter that it was meant for promotion. 6. Out of these four posts, two posts were meant for promotees and two for the direct recruit. As far as the post of Economics is concerned, it had become available only on 7.7.1973 and the officers of the Government while clearing that post, made it clear in the approval letter that it was meant for promotion. 6. This being the position as on 30.6.1994 out of the remaining four posts as against two posts meant for direct recruit, only one was filled by direct recruit which was the post of lecturer in English. This being the position if the management filled the post of Hindi lecturer by selecting a direct recruit, the management could not be faulted. 7. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on another ground. That was on the interpretation of Regulation 6 of Chapter II of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. That provision requires five years continuous substantive service. The learned Single Judge interpreted that requirement as having experience in the particular subject itself and not having five years experience otherwise. The appellant is challenging these findings and the respondent is very much defending it. 8. In the circumstances, we need not express one way or the other on the approach of the learned Single Judge with respect to his interpretation on Regulation 6 of Chapter II. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is, however, sustained on this other ground namely that the post concerned was not available to the appellant as a promotion post. 9. As noted above, the post concerned was not available to the appellant at all, inasmuch as it was to be filled by appointing a direct recruit. The appellant claimed it by way of promotion. Inasmuch as the appellant could not claim the post, there was no occasion to go into the question of qualification. 10. The appeal is dismissed. ————