Arun Tandon, J. - Heard Sri S. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A. K. Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and learned standing counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Appointment of respondent No. 5 as Principal of Janta Intermediate College, Kheda, district Meerut is being challenged by the petitioners on the ground that he was not working as teacher in any recognised institution on the date of interview and therefore, he is ineligible to be selected for the post of Principal. 3. Facts in short as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that respondent No. 5 was appointed as Lecturer on ad hoc basis against a vacancy caused due to grant of promotion to one Ram Bhool Singh as ad hoc Principal of Janta Intermediate College, Kheda, Meerut. Such appointment of respondent No. 5 as Lecturer against short term vacancy was approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 2nd May, 1995. It is stated that Ram Bhool Singh retired as Principal on 30th June, 2009 and therefore, the vacancy on the post of Lecturer became substantive. In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Swendra Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. and others, 2007 (1) ESC 118 (DB), the appointment of respondent No. 5 which was against a short term vacancy has come to automatically end. In the alternative it is contended that the teaching experience of respondent No. 5 against a short term vacancy cannot be taken into consideration satisfying the teaching experience required under Appendix-A of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 qua the post of Principal of a recognised Intermediate College. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the records of the present writ petition. 5. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the records of the present writ petition. 5. The issue as to whether the appointment of respondent No. 5 as ad hoc teacher has came to automatically end in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Singh (supra) is not of much relevance, inasmuch as the essential qualifications prescribed for being considered for appointment on the post of Principal under Appendix A of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as also under the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and Rules and Regulations framed thereunder do not contemplate that a person, who has applied for direct recruitment must be continuing as teacher on the date of interview. What is required is that the candidate must be possessed of the requisite teaching experience alongwith academic qualifications. In view of the aforesaid, the first ground raised on behalf of the petitioner has necessarily to be rejected. 6. So far as the second ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, from the records of the present writ petition it is apparently clear that respondent No. 5 has continued as teacher of an intermediate college since 1995, with the approval of the District Inspector of Schools. Such working of respondents No. 5 as a teacher in a recognised intermediate college with the approval of the District Inspector of Schools in accordance with the provisions applicable has to be taken into consideration as teaching experience as required under Item-1, Appendix-A of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, i.e., teaching experience of four years of Class IX to Class XII in an institution recognised by the Board. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court holds that respondent No. 5 is possessed of all the prescribed minimum qualifications for being considered for appointment as Principal and the challenge made to his selection by the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board is legally not sustainable. 8. The present writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.