JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The order which was passed in this writ petition at the time of reserving the judgment on 4.3.2009 is quoted below : “Heard learned counsel for the parties. Judgment Reserved. Learned Standing Counsel has shown the decision of regional committee dated 13.10.06 in respect of Smt. Usha Federick and photo-stat copy of the same has been placed on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically stated that petitioner is not basing her claim on the post falling vacant due to promotion of Smt. Usha Federick, and petitioner is claiming her appointment on the post vacated due to death of Smt. S. John which occurred on 31.3.1998.” 3. Petitioner was appointed as L.T. Grade teacher to teach arts/drawing in Carmel Girls Inter College Gorakhpur which is undisputedly a minority institution. Initially it was doubtful as to whether petitioner was appointed on the post which fell vacant either due to promotion of Smt. Usha Federick or due to death of Smt. S. John. However, afterwards petitioner categorically stated that she was claiming her appointment against the post which fell vacant due to death of Smt. S. John which occurred on 21.3.1998. Smt. S. John was basically teacher of Geography, However, it is alleged that she was also teaching arts/drawing. It is also not disputed that there is another teacher by the name of Smt. Qaiser (Kesar Mahmood) who is teaching art/drawing exclusively in the college in question. 4. Admittedly, there are 16 sanctioned post of L.T. Grade teachers in the college in question. 5. D.I.O.S. did not grant approval to the petitioner’s appointment. Earlier also matter came to this Court several times. The last writ petition, apart from the present one, was numbered as writ petition No.16910 of 2003 and was decided on 8.12.2004, copy of which decision is Annexure 14 to the writ petition. Matter was remanded to the D.I.O.S. to decide as to whether petitioner was appointed against the vacancy coming into existence due to death of Smt. S. John or due to promotion of Smt. Usha Federick. It was also required to be decided as to whether petitioner was eligible and qualified or not. Matter was remanded to the D.I.O.S. to decide as to whether petitioner was appointed against the vacancy coming into existence due to death of Smt. S. John or due to promotion of Smt. Usha Federick. It was also required to be decided as to whether petitioner was eligible and qualified or not. It was also required to be decided as to whether the claim of the Management that keeping in view strength of students offering art/drawing as a subject it was necessary to appoint additional fulfledged arts/drawing teacher was correct legally as well factually or not? Thereafter, D.I.O.S. decided the matter through order dated 15.3.2005 against the petitioner. Copy of the said decision is Annexure 1 to the writ petition which has been challenged through this writ petition. 6. The language which has been used by the D.I.O.S. in the impugned order leaves much to be desired. Three issues were framed by the D.I.O.S. One was regarding the vacancy against which petitioner had been appointed other was as to whether petitioner was eligible/qualified to be appointed or not and the third was as to whether Smt. S. John apart from being teacher of Geography was also teacher of art/drawing or not. However, no question was framed regarding strength of students offering art as a subject and requirement of additional teacher in view of the said strength. Under first point it was held that Smt. S. John was not having art/drawing as one of the subjects in her graduation course and she was geography teacher. It was further held that petitioner not being trained graduate could not be appointed in place of Smt. S. John. It was further observed that only one post of art/drawing teacher was sanctioned against which Smt. Qaiser (Kesar) Mahmood was drawing salary from the Government treasury. It was also observed that the alleged appointment of the petitioner was made by the Management considering the post of art/drawing teacher deemed to have been sanctioned on the basis of strength of the students but without permission of Director of Education no post could be deemed to be sanctioned. 7. Under Chapter II of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 qualifications for appointment to the post of lecturers and teachers have been separately provided subject-wise in Appendix A. Even for teachers for teaching classes IX to X (LT Grade) qualifications have been provided subject wise. 8. 7. Under Chapter II of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 qualifications for appointment to the post of lecturers and teachers have been separately provided subject-wise in Appendix A. Even for teachers for teaching classes IX to X (LT Grade) qualifications have been provided subject wise. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a Division Bench authority of this Court reported in B.P. Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others, 1985 UPLBEC 669. Interpreting Regulation 6 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921 in para 6 it has been held in the said authority that for promotion it is not necessary that the person shall be eligible to teach the subject which the teacher of the promotional posts before his retirement etc. was teaching. However, the said authority deals with promotion and is based upon interpretation of Regulation 6 of Chapter II. It cannot be applied to direct appointment. 9. Even though in the writ petition it has been stated that there are 16 posts of LT Grade teachers (para 7) however, it has not been mentioned that those 16 posts are for what subjects. As Annexure 28 to the writ petition, a letter of Management dated 24.1.2004 addressed to the D.I.O.S. has been annexed. In the said letter it is mentioned that number of students offering drawing is quite large and Smt. Qaiser (Kesar) Mahmood was not capable to cope with the pressure (more than 36 periods in a week), hence there was requirement for additional teacher of drawing. By virtue of Section 9 of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 (U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees Act, 1971) no post of teacher can be created except with the previous approval of the Director [vide Gopal Dubey v. D.I.O.S., 1999 UPLBEC 1 (FB)]. 10. Smt. S. John was basically a geography teacher appointed as such but she was also teaching drawing. However, it has not been stated that who is teaching geography at the place of Smt. S. John. If number of students offering a particular subject increases then management is required to get sanctioned additional posts under Section 9 of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971. However, it has not been stated that who is teaching geography at the place of Smt. S. John. If number of students offering a particular subject increases then management is required to get sanctioned additional posts under Section 9 of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971. Even though it may ask a teacher of a particular subject to teach another subject additionally, however for that additional subject fresh appointment cannot be made unless post is sanctioned. Smt. S. John was basically a teacher of geography additionally teaching drawing also. Accordingly at her death teacher in geography could be appointed but not teacher for exclusively teaching drawing. 11. Two facts are not denied in the writ petition. The first is that petitioner is not qualified to be appointed as Geography teacher (in fact she does not claim to have been appointed as geography teacher). The other is that Smt. Mahmood is regular teacher of drawing. 12. Accordingly, additional teacher of drawing cannot be appointed. Either a new post is required to be sanctioned by the Director or if there is any other subject in which number of students in the college in question has drastically reduced then readjustment is to take place. The question as to whether readjustment also requires approval of Director is left undecided and open. However, there is absolutely no allegation that there is any such subject particularly Geography where number of students have fallen to such an extent than it does not require any teacher or number of teachers sanctioned for the said posts require to be decreased. 13. There is also no allegation by the petitioner or the management that less than 16 L.T. Grade teachers of the college are getting salary under U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971. 14. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed. ————