JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is being heard and decided finally under the Rules of this Court at this stage. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 25.8.2008 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur Nagar, (respondent No. 2) whereby it has upheld the decision of the District Inspector of Schools for not approving the selections made by the respondents on the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade and has directed to fill in the vacancies afresh in accordance with law. 3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioners’ institution, i.e., Km. Udyan Balika Inter College, Ashok Nagar, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the “institution”) is a Christian minority institution recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate imparting education up to High School. It is governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the “1921 Act”) and since the institution is aided one, is governed by the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “1971 Act”). One Smt. Vineet Shreedhar, Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade sought voluntary retirement on 30.6.2006 and another Smt. Janak Chabra, similarly sought voluntary retirement on 30.6.2007 resulting in two vacancies in the institution. The petitioners’ institution sought approval of the District Inspector of Schools for filling in the said vacancies and thereafter published an advertisement in daily newspaper “The Pioneer” (English) and “Dainik Jagran” (Hindi) dated 16.8.2007. The contents of the advertisement in English reads as under : “WANTED TWO TRAINED GRADUATE ASSISTANT TEACHERS, COMPUTER KNOWLEDGE DESIRABLE SCALE Rs. 500-9000 ON ONE YEARS PROBATION. FORM AVAILABLE IN OFFICE ON PRESCRIBED PAYMENT APPLY THROUGH REGISTERED POST TO THE MANAGER KUMARI UDYAN VIDYALAYA ASHOK NAGAR KANPUR WITHIN 15 DAYS.” 4. It is said that 56 applications were received which were processed and after making selection the petitioners recommended Smt. Ruchita Mishra, M.Sc., B.Ed. and Rosaleen Peter, B.Sc., B.Ed. for being appointed as Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade in the vacancies caused by Smt. Vineet Shreedhar and Smt. Janak Chabra respectively. 5. It is said that 56 applications were received which were processed and after making selection the petitioners recommended Smt. Ruchita Mishra, M.Sc., B.Ed. and Rosaleen Peter, B.Sc., B.Ed. for being appointed as Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade in the vacancies caused by Smt. Vineet Shreedhar and Smt. Janak Chabra respectively. 5. The District Inspector of Schools, however, declined to approve the said selection by order dated 4.2.2008 observing that in the advertisement there was no reference of the subject in which the appointments were to be made. He also observed that both the teachers have been selected for teaching in Mathematics subject but out of 56 applicants only five possessed the requisite qualification of Science and Math. In his view if the subject would have been mentioned in the advertisement more persons possessing requisite qualification would have applied. He also observed that in the waiting list the candidates who have been placed, possess qualification with respect to Zoology, Botany and English subjects which means that the petitioners’ institution itself is not clear as to in what subject it needs to make appointment in the existing vacancy. 6. Aggrieved by the order dated 4.2.2008 passed by the District Inspector of Schools the petitioners approached Joint Director of Education vide appeal dated 14.2.2008. Since it was not decided, they came to this Court in Writ Petition No. 22015 of 2008 which was disposed of on 1.5.2008 directing the Joint Director of Education to decide the matter. Pursuant thereto the impugned order dated 25.8.2008 has been passed by the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Mandal Kanpur rejecting appeal and upholding the decision of the District Inspector of Schools. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Government Order dated 20.11.1977 do not provide any requirement of particular subject for the teachers sought to be appointed for teaching of 9th and 10th class. He also pointed out that the teachers who are appointed being eligible to teach 9th and 10th classes may also be utilised for imparting education in classes 6th to 8th but there is no requirement of mentioning any particular subject and the only requirement is that they should be trained graduate. He, therefore, submitted that non mention of subject in the advertisement for recruitment to the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade could not have been said to be an error or illegality which may vitiate the entire selection. 8. He, therefore, submitted that non mention of subject in the advertisement for recruitment to the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade could not have been said to be an error or illegality which may vitiate the entire selection. 8. The qualifications required for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade are prescribed in Regulation I, Chapter II of the Regulations made under 1921 Act. 9. Regulation I of Chapter II of the Regulations refers to the qualification as given in Appendix A and the Appendix A shows that the qualifications prescribed therein for the teachers of Intermediate classes and High School are with reference to the particular subject. The entire Appendix-A nowhere provides in a general way that a teacher possessing a graduate degree or equivalent diploma etc. would be eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) irrespective of the subject. On the contrary, the qualifications prescribed for in Appendix A Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) for High School i.e. class 9 and 10 are with reference to different subjects. 10. Though the petitioners have not placed on record, when enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioners he admit that while granting recognition to the petitioners’ institution, various subjects in which the institution shall impart education was also considered and mentioned in the recognition letter and it is in the context of those subjects the recognition is granted. If that being so, it is really difficult and wholly ununderstandable as to how the petitioners can claim that it was not required to mention the concerned subject in which an Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade is required to be appointed. The argument ex facie is misconceived and lacks substance. 11. The number of posts of Assistant Teachers L.T. Grade sanctioned in a College, if are taken in the light of the subjects for which recognition has been granted by the Board, it would mean that for every individual subject, an Assistant Teacher possessing requisite qualification in Appendix-A can only be appointed and not otherwise. He/She is not required to have worked as an Assistant Teacher in concerned subject so far as experience is concerned but at least what is required under the aforesaid Rules and regulations quoted above that he/she must possess educational qualification prescribed for the post with reference to “relevant subject”. He/She is not required to have worked as an Assistant Teacher in concerned subject so far as experience is concerned but at least what is required under the aforesaid Rules and regulations quoted above that he/she must possess educational qualification prescribed for the post with reference to “relevant subject”. For example if a teacher in science is to be appointed in L.T. Grade, he/she must possess educational qualification of B.Sc. with Physics and Chemistry, as provided at item 33, Appendix A, Chapter II of the Regulations framed under 1921 Act though at the time of making selection for promotion, he/she might not have been working as Science teacher or in past even if had not worked as such. The educational qualification prescribed in Appendix A is with reference to the subject concerned and therefore, it cannot be said that even if one does not possess educational qualification prescribed under Appendix A for the concerned subject yet he/ she can be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) irrespective of the subject for which the appointment is require to be made. 12. A similar question has already been considered by this Court though in the context of not direct recruitment but promotion to the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade but the Rules and other things are pari materia with respect to qualification etc. In the case of Km. Deoki Verma v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(6) ADJ 457 , para 22 to 30 of the judgment reads as under : “22. Here it is not in dispute that the post in question fell vacant due to retirement of one Padam Singh, who was working as Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) in English. The promotion was to be considered in the vacancy caused due to his retirement. The petitioner, admittedly, did not possess the requisite educational qualification under Appendix A for appointment as an Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) in English as in B.A., she did not have the subject of English and her subjects were General Hindi, Hindi Literature, Economics and Education, as mentioned in the impugned order by J.D.E. and is not disputed by the petitioner. 23. 23. In Chandra Pratap Singh (supra) while construing Rule 9 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983, as amended, the observation of the Court is that the requirement of service as a teacher in the concerned subject being not provided in the Rule as it was available w.e.f. 1st July, 1983 it was not necessary that one must be serving as a teacher in the concerned subject. The dispute arisen in that case was different. The decision does not lay down a general law that the minimum qualification in the concerned subject as per Appendix-A Chapter II of the Regulations under 1921 Act stands obliterated. That was not the dispute before the Court. Para 3 of the judgment shows that the educational qualification of respondent No. 1, Madhav Sharan Tripathi in that case who to be promoted as a Drawing teacher was not in dispute but the question raised therein was whether having never worked in C.T. Grade as Drawing teacher he can be appointed. In other words the submission was that his experience of service as teacher for five years was not in the subject of ‘Drawing’ which was insisted by the petitioner in that case. This argument was negated. This Court nowhere says that the minimum educational qualification, which was prescribed in appendix A with reference to subjects, is also not available since that was not an issue involved in that case. Therefore, this judgment lends no support to the petitioner. 24. On the contrary, Rule 5 of 1998 Rules makes it very clear that the educational qualification under 1998 Rules means the qualifications prescribed in Regulation 1 Chapter II of the Regulations, which in turn refers to appendix A. Reading Rule 14 insofar as it requires qualification prescribed for the post along with Rule 5 of 1998 Rules as well as regulation 1 chapter II and appendix A of the Regulations, I have no manner of doubt that the educational qualifications are with reference to concerned subjects and therefore, the contention that the qualification with reference to subject is not required to be possessed by a teacher who is senior most for promotion to the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) cannot be accepted. 25. 25. The subject in which the incumbent was imparting education on whose retirement the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) has fallen vacant in the College, the senior most Assistant teacher working in Primary Section does not possess the qualifications as prescribed in Appendix A is admitted. The submission that yet she/he can be promoted is wholly incorrect, has no substance and has to be rejected. 26. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, it will cause not only a total chaos and disarray in the educational institution and in particular in the High School classes but also would be contrary to the interest of the students community at large. Advancement of carrier prospects of teachers is not the basic object of an educational institution but the foundation and basic objective is to impart education to the children in different disciplines for their betterment. Appointment and engagement of teaching and non-teaching staff is a method of achieving the said objective. The livelihood earned by such staff engaged, their carrier advancement etc. are all incidental. Such incidental consideration cannot out way the basic objective. It would be a mockery of the system if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, which may result in a given case where in the primary Sections irrespective of any subject consideration some teachers are imparting education possessing only graduation, and though in the High School the institution is recognised only for science subject but though they have no educational qualification in Science, still may press for their promotion obviously such teachers cannot take science classes. If a teacher possessing no knowledge of science, had never studied the same up to graduate level, insist upon to be promoted as assistant teacher (L.T. Grade) in a vacancy caused due to retirement of a science teacher and there is nobody else to impart teaching in science in the institution, it would mean that a C.T. Grade teacher having no knowledge of science subjects having not studied the same upto graduate level, which is the minimum requirement of a teacher to become eligible to impart education to class 9 and 10, yet can be promoted merely to take into consideration his/her promotional aspect viz. the career advancement of the teacher concerned completely ignoring the requirement of the institution i.e. a science teacher. 27. the career advancement of the teacher concerned completely ignoring the requirement of the institution i.e. a science teacher. 27. A full bench of this Court in Smt. Basanti Gaur v. Regional Inspectress of Girls’ Schools, VII Region, Gorakhpur and others, AIR 1987 All 191 while considering the word academic qualification in paras 7 and 9 observed as under : “7. (iv) ‘’Academic qualification’ : Let us first examine the meaning of the word ‘Academic’. In Black’s Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition) page 11 it is as follows : “Pertaining to college, university or preparatory school.” In the same dictionary at page 1116 the meaning of the word “Qualification” has been given thus : “The possession by an individual of qualities, properties, or circumstances, natural or adventitious, which are inherently or legally necessary to render him eligible to fill an office or to perform a public duty or function.” In Mozley and Witeley’s Law Dictionary also, the term ‘Qualification’ has been described as : “That which makes a person eligible to do certain Act or to hold office.” “9. The term “academic qualification” is not to be restricted just to degrees or diplomas possessed by a teacher. There is no discernible compulsion either in the language or context of the Statute to ascribe such a narrower meaning to the term. The Rule making authority was not unaware of this. In Appendix A to the regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act lays down the minimum qualifications for various categories of teachers including Headmasters and Principals. Teaching experience has also been prescribed therein for Principals of Intermediate colleges are as one of the minimum qualifications. While diplomas or degrees in the subject are undoubtedly academic qualifications, they are not exhaustive of the qualifications pertaining to academic posts. The fact that a teacher has done some research in the subject or contributed articles on the subject in recognised journals or had teaching experience in the subject over a period are equally academic qualifications relevant in the context.” 28. The Full Bench further in para 11 of the judgment observed as under : “It must not be forgotten that the appointments of teachers, lecturers or professors in the educational institutions are primarily for the benefits of students.” 29. In my view the above observations are attracted with full force in this case. 30. The Full Bench further in para 11 of the judgment observed as under : “It must not be forgotten that the appointments of teachers, lecturers or professors in the educational institutions are primarily for the benefits of students.” 29. In my view the above observations are attracted with full force in this case. 30. I do not insist upon that the one must have worked as a teacher in the concerned subject or must have experience in the concerned subjects but simultaneously I am clearly of the view that for promotion under Rule 14 of 1998 Rules, one must possess the prescribed qualification and this takes us to the educational qualifications which are prescribed in Appendix A Chapter II of the Regulations under 1921 Act which are with reference to different subjects. The petitioner admittedly does not fulfill the academic qualification as she did not have subject of English in B.A. Therefore, in my view, it cannot be said that the J.D.E. has erred in law in holding that the petitioner ineligible for promotion the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) which fell vacant due to retirement of Padam Singh, who was working as Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) in English.” 13. The above decision has been confirmed by the Division Bench in Km. Deoki Verma v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(7) ADJ 481 . 14. I need not to bother by lengthening this judgment discussing the matter again since, in my view, what has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners in the case in hand, in fact, is squarely answered by what has been held by this Court in Km. Deoki Verma (supra) and the same is squarely applicable in the present case. 15. In the result, I find no error apparent on the face of record in the orders impugned in this writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is dismissed with costs which is quantified to Rs. 5000/-. —————