JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Shrimad Brahmanand Intermediate College, Aligarh is a recognized and aided Intermediate College (hereinafter referred to as the “institution”). The provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to the Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, and those of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 are fully applicable to the teachers of the institution. 3. From the records of the present writ petition, it is apparently clear that a substantive vacancy was caused in the institution on the post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi) due to retirement of one Bhudeo Prasad on 30th June, 1989. The Committee of Management is stated to have forwarded the requisition to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”) on 22th August, 1990. The Committee of Management is stated to have offered appointment after notifying the vacancy on the notice board of the institution on 6th July, 1991. The petitioner was appointed on 14th July, 1991. On 15th July, 1991, papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for financial approval to the said ad hoc appointment. Since no action was taken, petitioner filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus initially for payment of salary. During the pendency of the present writ petition, District Inspector of Schools passed an order disapproving the alleged ad hoc appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher (Hindi). The order so passed has been challenged by the petitioner by means of amendment application which has already been allowed vide order dated 7th April, 2000. 4. The impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools of disapproval dated 29/31st August, 1992 records various reasons for the purpose. Amongst others, it has been recorded that the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner has been made before expiry of two months of the date of notification of the vacancy and therefore, Section 18 of the Act, 1982 was not attracted. Further the vacancy was within the quota for promotion, yet direct recruitment has been resorted and therefore, is violation of the provisions of Section 16 of Act, 1982. The writ petition suffers from concealment of material facts. Further the vacancy was within the quota for promotion, yet direct recruitment has been resorted and therefore, is violation of the provisions of Section 16 of Act, 1982. The writ petition suffers from concealment of material facts. Lastly, it has been recorded that in the institution, there were only 13 posts of L.T. grade, while 14 teachers are already working in L.T. Grade in the institution, thus, appointment was in excess of sanctioned strength. 5. Challenging the aforesaid order of the District Inspector of Schools, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that there were 13 sanctioned posts of L.T. grade teachers and 11 sanctioned posts of C.T. grade teachers, while 10 teachers in L.T. grade and 11 teachers in C.T. grade were working in the institution. Therefore, there were two vacancies in existence in L.T. grade, against one of them, petitioner has been appointed. In paragraph 25 of the amended writ petition, similarly it has been contended that requisition of the post was forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools on 22nd August, 1990. The District Inspector of Schools instead of forwarding the same to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board raised certain objection and it was ultimately on 4th July, 1991 that the receipt of the requisition was issued by the office of the District Inspector of Schools. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to paragraph-25 read with paragraph-30 of the amended writ petition contends that no person in C.T. grade was qualified for promotion to L.T. grade, inasmuch as four persons in C.T. grade had already been sanctioned L.T. grade under relevant orders and that C.T. cadre is now a dying cadre. Although in the writ petition it has been stated that the vacancy was advertised on the notice board as well as in news papers, however, there are absolutely no details qua the advertisement. 6. The issue with regard to the ad hoc appointment against substantive vacancy has been subject matter of consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Radha Raizada and others v. Committee of Management and others, (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1551 , it has been held that publication of the vacancy on the notice board is no advertisement in the eyes of law. Any appointment made on the strength of the notice published on the notice board would be per se illegal and voilative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Full Bench has categorically explained law applicable at different point of time qua ad hoc appointment against substantive vacancy. The Full Bench has clarified that before making any direct recruitment on ad hoc basis, candidature of a teacher, who is already working in the institution in the next lower grade, in the facts of the present case C.T. grade, has to be considered for promotion, it is only when no suitable person is available, that direct recruitment can be resorted to. 7. Non-publication of the advertisement in newspaper is a denial of equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates qua participation in the selection and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India rendering the selections a nullity. 8. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment in Tungeshwar Nath v. The State of U.P. and another, 2008(8) ADJ 289 (DB) : 2008(4) ESC 2699 (DB) of which I was one of the member, has reiterated the law so laid down. 9. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner has taken a stand that claim for promotion to L.T.grade of teachers working in C.T. grade, was not considered on two grounds (a) four persons were already granted salary in L.T. grade, and (b) C.T. cadre has been declared to be dying cadre. 10. I am of the considered opinion that both grounds are totally misconceived. Mere grant of L.T. grade does not amount to promotion in L.T. grade. The law in that regard has been explained by a Division Bench of this Court in the case Vipin Kumar v. District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffar Nagar and others, 1993 (3) UPLBEC 1800 and Kumari Sheela Sanyal v. State of U.P. and others, 1995 ALJ 589. 11. Similarly because C.T. grade has been declared to be dying cadre, it will not mean that C.T. grade teacher becomes dis- entitle for promotion to L.T. grade. 12. With regard to requisition of the vacancies, the stand of the State-authorities is that complete requisition was received in the office of District Inspector of Schools only on 4th July, 1991. The stand so taken could not be demonstrated to be untrue by the petitioner. 12. With regard to requisition of the vacancies, the stand of the State-authorities is that complete requisition was received in the office of District Inspector of Schools only on 4th July, 1991. The stand so taken could not be demonstrated to be untrue by the petitioner. It has only been stated that requisition was sent earlier, to which objections were raised, which were met on 4th July, 1991 and that receipt of the requisition was issued on the same date. The stand so taken corroborates the case pleaded in the counter affidavit that the requisition has been received only on 4th July, 1991. From the date or receipt of the requisition complete in all respect i.e. 4th July, 1991, two months period had not elapsed on the date of petitioner’s appointment. The Committee of Management had no power to make any ad hoc appointment against a substantive vacancy on the date the petitioner has been so appointed. 13. Lastly this Court may record that neither any newspaper has been referred to nor has been brought on record, which could establish that the vacancy was advertised in any newspaper. In the case of Radha Raizada (Supra), it has been held that for appointment against substantive vacancy, advertisement of vacancy in two newspaper is mandatory and in absence of such advertisement the appointment would be per se illegal. 14. In the totality of the circumstances, as noticed herein above, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the order of the District Inspect of Schools impugned in the present writ petition. 15. The present writ petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands discharged. —————