JUDGMENT By the Court.—The special appeal has arisen from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19 March 2015. The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition (Writ-A No. 538 of 2009) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to question the legality of an order dated 10 December 2008 passed by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (the Board), cancelling the appointment of the appellant as Principal of the Saraswati Inter College, Jhansi. The order of appointment which was issued on 11 July 2008 was cancelled on 10 December 2008 on the ground that, on the last date for the submission of applications, the appellant did not fulfill the qualifications prescribed for the post of Principal. 2. An advertisement was issued by the Board on 3 March 2002 for appointment to the post of Principal. The date for the submission of applications was 30 March 2002. The qualifications prescribed were (i) the possession of a post-graduate degree from an institution or university established in accordance with law; (ii) possession of a training qualification namely, B.Ed, L.T., B.T. and B.P.Ed. The advertisement contained a stipulation requiring a teaching experience of ten years in Intermediate classes of any recognised institution together with a post-graduate degree in the first or second class or a teaching experience of fifteen years for a candidate possessing a post-graduate degree in the third class. 3. The appellant was appointed as a Lecturer in Physics and his services have been regularised with effect from 12 January 1990. The appellant had proceeded on study leave between 15 April 1992 and 8 March 1996. It is not in dispute that on the last date for the submission of applications, the experience of the appellant was nine years and three months as against the required norm of ten years. The Board prepared a panel of selected candidates in which the name of the appellant was included on 1 August 2002. In the meantime, litigation took place before this Court in which selections made by the Board to the post of Principals in Intermediate Colleges including the institution in which the appellant had been selected were called into question. Writ petitions were filed before a learned Single Judge of this Court and the matter was carried in appeal before a Division Bench which quashed the panel of selected candidates. Writ petitions were filed before a learned Single Judge of this Court and the matter was carried in appeal before a Division Bench which quashed the panel of selected candidates. Eventually on 16 May 2008, the Supreme Court allowed all the appeals and vacated the interim orders which had operated in respect of the panel prepared by the Board. The appellant joined as Principal of the college on 15 July 2008. A complaint was made to the District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi on 18 July 2008 on the ground that the appellant did not possess ten years of teaching experience which was mandatory for selection to the post of Principal under the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 (Rules of 1998) read with Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (Act of 1921) in Appendix ‘A’. The appointment of the appellant was cancelled on 10 December 2008 which led to the filing of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by the impugned judgment and order dated 19 March 2015 holding that (i) the period during which the appellant was on study leave did not qualify as teaching experience; (ii) on the last date for the submission of applications, the appellant failed to met the required qualifications inasmuch as he did not possess ten years of teaching experience; and (iii) an appointment which was illegal could not be protected under Article 226 of the Constitution as that would amount to the perpetuation of an illegality. 4. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant by learned Senior Counsel is that the possession of ten years’ teaching experience cannot be regarded as an essential qualification. The submission is founded on the premise that under Section 16-E (3) of the Act of 1921, there is a bar to the appointment of the Head of an institution or a teacher who does not possess the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Regulations but the proviso contemplates that a person who does not possess such qualifications may also be appointed if an exemption has been granted to him by the Board of Intermediate Education having regard to his education, experience and other attainments. The Board, it has been submitted, had issued a general circular on 15 April 1977 contemplating the grant of an exemption subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. Though concededly, no exemption was granted to the appellant, learned counsel submitted that the provisions contained in the circular dated 15 April 1977 would indicate that the possession of teaching experience of ten years was not regarded as mandatory. Moreover, it was urged that though the State Legislature subsequently enacted the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (Act of 1982), Section 32 provides that the provisions of the Act of 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder would continue to be in force for the purposes of selection and appointment, among other things, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act of 1982. It was urged that the power to grant exemption under Section 16-E (3) of the Act of 1921 is not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act of 1982. 5. The State Legislature enacted the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 to establish a Board for the selection of teachers in institutions recognised under the Act of 1921. The Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the introduction of the Bill in the State Legislature provides the rationale for the enactment of a separate legislation for the selection of Principals, Lecturers, Headmasters and Teachers. The Statement of Objects and Reasons reads as follows : “The appointment of teachers in secondary institutions recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education was governed by the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and regulations made thereunder. It was felt that the selection of teachers under the provisions of the said Act and the regulations was some times not free and fair. Besides, the field of selection was also very much restricted. This adversely affected the availability of suitable teachers and the standard of education. It was therefore, considered necessary to constitute Secondary Education Service Commission at the State level, to select Principals, Lecturers, Headmasters and L.T. Grade teachers, and Secondary Education Selection Boards at the regional level, to select and make available suitable candidates for comparatively lower posts in C.T./J.T.C./B.T.C. Grade for such institutions.” 6. Chapter II of the Act of 1982 deals with the functions and establishment of the Board. Section 10 provides for the procedure for selection by direct recruitment. Chapter II of the Act of 1982 deals with the functions and establishment of the Board. Section 10 provides for the procedure for selection by direct recruitment. Section 11 provides for the preparation of the panel upon a vacancy being notified under sub-section (1) of Section 10. Section 16(1) provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act of 1921 or the Regulations framed thereunder, every appointment of a teacher shall be made by the management only on the recommendation of the Board. The Board is vested with the rule making power under Section 35 for carrying out the purposes of the Act. In pursuance of the power to frame Rules, the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1998 have been framed. Rule 5, which stipulates the academic qualifications, is as follows: “5. Academic qualifications.—A candidate for appointment to a post of teacher must possess qualifications specified in Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Regulations made under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.” 7. The expression ‘Teacher’, it must be noted, is defined in Section 2(k) of the Act of 1982 to mean a person employed for imparting instruction in an institution and includes a Principal or a Headmaster. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1998 incorporates the qualifications which have been specified in Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Regulations made under the Act of 1921. The essential qualifications for the post of the Head of the Institution, as prescribed in Appendix ‘A’ to Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921 are as follows : Essential Qualifications Sl. No. Name of the post Essential Training experience Age Desirable qualifications 1 2 3 4 5 1 Head of the Institution (1) should be trained M.A. or M.Sc. or M.Com or M.Sc. No. Name of the post Essential Training experience Age Desirable qualifications 1 2 3 4 5 1 Head of the Institution (1) should be trained M.A. or M.Sc. or M.Com or M.Sc. (Ag) or any equivalent Post-graduate or other degree which is conferred by any body as referred to in above para and should possess teaching experience from any training institution recognised by the department or any degree college affiliated with any University or institut ion or any degree college affiliated with such institution as referred to in above mentioned first para, or at least four years teaching experience in classes 9-12 in any institution recognised by Board or in any institution affiliated with the Boards of other States or alike institutions, whose examinations are recognised by Board, or should possess at least four years experience as trained graduate Head Master in any Junior High School recognised by Deptt. Provided that he/she should not be less than thirty years of age or (2) Teaching experience of ten years in Intermediate classes of any recognised institution with first or second class postgraduate degree, or third class post graduate degree with 15 years’ teaching experience. or (3) Post graduate diploma holder in Science; provided that he has passed diploma course in first or second class and has served meritoriously for 15 years or 20 years respectively in any recognised institution after passing such diploma course. Note —(1) At least second class post graduate degree and on special teaching experience of 10 years in Intermediate classes of recognised institution, training eligibility of Asstt. teachers may be relaxed (As per the provisions in the Act). (2) Teaching prior to training or after training both, are included in teaching experience. (3) Higher classes means classes 9-12 and teaching experience of these classes is admissible for the post of Principal in Intermediate College. Minimum 30 years 8. Clause (1) of the qualifications, as prescribed, requires that a person must be a trained post-graduate and should possess stipulated experience from a training institution. It is not in dispute that the appellant did not fulfill the requirement in Clause (1). In Clause (2) what is provided is a teaching experience of ten years in intermediate classes of any recognised institution with a first or second class post-graduate degree, or teaching experience of fifteen years with a post-graduate degree in the third class. It is not in dispute that the appellant did not fulfill the requirement in Clause (1). In Clause (2) what is provided is a teaching experience of ten years in intermediate classes of any recognised institution with a first or second class post-graduate degree, or teaching experience of fifteen years with a post-graduate degree in the third class. Admittedly, the appellant did not fulfill the requirement of having an experience of ten years in teaching intermediate classes on the last date for the submission of applications. 9. The submission, however, which has been urged on behalf of the appellant is that the requirement of teaching experience of ten years was not an essential qualification and was capable of being relaxed. 10. Now, at the outset, it must be noted that Clause (2) applies to a situation where a candidate does not possess the required training qualifications as prescribed in Clause (1). In such a case, the Regulations contemplate a teaching experience of a stipulated term together with the holding of a post-graduate degree. The requirement of teaching experience, on the plain terms of the Regulation, cannot be regarded as an unessential or directory requirement. A candidate who does not have a training qualification under Clause (1) can be considered on the basis of teaching experience under Clause (2) and it would be far-fetched to hold that the possession of teaching experience of ten years or, as the case may be, fifteen years is not of a mandatory nature. If such a construction were to be placed, that would defeat the very object and purpose of having duly qualified teachers. Such a construction must be discarded. Hence, the requirement of a teaching experience must be treated as mandatory. 11. The submission based on the provisions of Section 16-E of the Act of 1921 now falls for consideration. Sub-section 3 of Section 16-E provides as follows : “16-E. Procedure for selection of teachers and head of institutions.— ... ... ... (3) No person shall be appointed as Head of Institution or teacher in an institution unless he possesses the minimum qualification prescribed by the regulations: Provided that a person who does not possess such qualification may also be appointed if he has been granted exemption by the Board having regard to his education, experience and other attainments.” 12. ... ... (3) No person shall be appointed as Head of Institution or teacher in an institution unless he possesses the minimum qualification prescribed by the regulations: Provided that a person who does not possess such qualification may also be appointed if he has been granted exemption by the Board having regard to his education, experience and other attainments.” 12. When the State Legislature enacted the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982), the following provisions were made in Section 32. “32. Applicability of U.P. Act No. II of 1921.—The provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulation made thereunder in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder shall continue to be in force for the purposes of selection, appointment, promotion, dismissal, removal, termination or reduction in rank of a teacher.” 13. Section 32 of the Act of 1982 provides that the provisions contained in the Act of 1921 and its Regulations framed thereunder, shall continue to remain in force for the purposes, inter alia, of selection and appointment, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Under Section 16-E (3), the Board of High School and Intermediate Education was conferred with the power to exempt, in a particular case, a person who does not possess the prescribed qualifications for appointment as a Head of an Institution or a teacher having regard to his education, experience and other attainments. 14. The matter may be examined from two dimensions. Firstly, the appellant admittedly had not received an exemption from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education as contemplated by the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 16-E of the Act of 1921. Secondly, after the enactment of the Act of 1982, the Board was constituted for the purpose of making appointment of teachers in institutions governed by the provisions of the Act. The Board was vested with the power to prepare a panel of candidates and as we have already noted, appointments have to be made notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act of 1921 only on the recommendation of the Board. In exercise of the rule making power, the Board has framed the Rules of 1998. Rule 5 provides for the academic qualifications. In exercise of the rule making power, the Board has framed the Rules of 1998. Rule 5 provides for the academic qualifications. The academic qualifications stipulated in Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Regulations made under the Act of 1921 have been incorporated in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1998. No power to grant an exemption has been specifically contemplated in the Act of 1982. The power to grant an exemption which has been conferred upon the Board of High School and Intermediate Education under the Act of 1921, cannot possibly apply to a selection which is governed by the Act of 1982. Once the State Legislature enacted a comprehensive legislation in 1982, the object of which was to deal with the mal-practices which were noticed in the functioning of the institutions under the Act of 1921, it cannot be held that after the entire process of selection and appointment was vested in the Board, there would, nonetheless, be a power to grant an exemption vested in the Board constituted under the Act of 1921. That power of exemption cannot be attracted to the selections and appointments to be made in pursuance of the Act of 1982. The power to prescribe qualifications is incidental to the power to make selections and appointments and, in any event, the matter has been placed beyond doubt by the specific provisions of Rule 5 which govern the qualifications which a candidate must possess in order to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. Those qualifications are mandatory and cannot be relaxed. 15. The learned Single Judge has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others, (2013) 11 SCC 58 , in which it has been held, inter alia, that a candidate who does not possess the requisite qualifications on the last date for the submission of the application would be ineligible for selection. The Supreme Court emphasised that there may be a large number of candidates who are not eligible in terms of the requirements under the Rules or advertisement, since they did not possess eligibility on the last date for the submission of the application forms. The Supreme Court emphasised that there may be a large number of candidates who are not eligible in terms of the requirements under the Rules or advertisement, since they did not possess eligibility on the last date for the submission of the application forms. Granting benefit to one candidate would be violative of the doctrine of equality since a large number of other candidates may not have applied, considering themselves to be ineligible in terms of the Rules or in terms of an advertisement. Moreover, there is no obligation on the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to protect an illegal appointment and the extraordinary power can be utilised only to advance the cause of justice and not to create arbitrariness. Usurpation of a post by ineligible candidates is impermissible. 16. In the present case, the appellant joined on the post on 15 July 2008 and his appointment was cancelled within a short period thereafter on 10 December 2008. The appellant thereafter continued in pursuance of an interim order protecting his services which was passed on 15 January 2009. No higher equities can be created as a result of an interim order of a Court once the basic conclusion is that the appellant was ineligible for appointment. 17. Three decisions of the Supreme Court have been relied upon by the appellant in support of the submission that even if the appellant was ineligible on the date for the submission of application forms, that is only an irregularity which can be cured once the appellant had acquired a necessary qualification. The decision in Ram Sarup v. State of Haryana, AIR 1978 SC 1536 , involved the appointment of a Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer. The candidate had been appointed in that capacity on 1 January 1968 and had continued untill 28 April 1977. The rules in that case provided minimum educational qualifications and independently, a condition of experience. The Supreme Court held that the appointment of the appellant had been irregular since he failed to possess five years experience in the working of labour laws but that the appellant became regular from the date when he completed five years. The view taken was that thereafter the appellant could not have been reverted to the lower post. The facts in that case are clearly distinguishable. The view taken was that thereafter the appellant could not have been reverted to the lower post. The facts in that case are clearly distinguishable. For one thing the appellant had continued on the post for nearly nine years but more particularly, the requirement of experience was distinct from the possession of educational qualifications. During the interim period, the appellant had fulfilled the norm of five years’ experience. Similarly, in Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and others v. Abahi Kumar and others, (2001) 3 SCC 328 , an advertisement was issued for appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector. All the selected candidates, the Supreme Court emphasised, possessed the necessary qualifications or an equivalent qualification. The only issue was whether a candidate, who did not possess the necessary experience, could be displaced after having been employed for over a decade as a Motor Vehicle Inspector. It was in this context that the Supreme Court held that the lack of experience, if any, at the time of recruitment had been made good since and that equitable considerations would stand attracted. The third decision in Bholanath Mukherjee and others v. Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda Centenary College and others, (2011) 5 SCC 464 , involved a case where a person who was appointed as Principal had less than the teaching experience required. The Supreme Court noted that all the petitioners who had challenged the appointment had ceased to be in service and even if the appointment of the selected candidates was held to be illegal or void, no relief could be granted to the petitioners. In addition to this, the Supreme Court noted that by the time the matter had reached the Supreme Court, the selected candidate would have more than 15 years of required experience for the post of Principal and the ground that he was not qualified for want of necessary experience would no longer be available. 18. In the present case, it must be noted that the requirement of teaching experience was an essential qualification. Clause (2) incorporated a requirement which would apply to a candidate who did not have the required training qualification. Clause (1) provided a requirement of holding a training qualification and what Clause (2) did, was to allow candidates without a training qualification but with a required teaching experience, to meet the condition of eligibility. Clause (2) incorporated a requirement which would apply to a candidate who did not have the required training qualification. Clause (1) provided a requirement of holding a training qualification and what Clause (2) did, was to allow candidates without a training qualification but with a required teaching experience, to meet the condition of eligibility. In a case such as the present, it would not be proper for the Court to hold that though a candidate does not hold the training qualification, he would nonetheless be regarded as eligible despite a lack of teaching experience. The appointment of the appellant was cancelled within a short duration of five months from the date of joining. The appellant continued only on the strength of an interim order of this Court which cannot confer any higher right or equity. After the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, the senior-most candidate, the Court is informed, has already taken charge. 19. The learned Single Judge has adopted a view which is consistent with the legal position. The view of the learned Single Judge is also supported by the decision of the Supreme Court. In a special appeal, this Court would not be inclined to interfere where the learned Single Judge has taken a view which was founded on a correct assessment of both the facts and the law which has been laid down by the Supreme Court. 20. For these reasons, we see no merit in the special appeal. The special appeal shall accordingly stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ———————