( 1 ) THIS case has come before us upon a reference by a Division Bench which felt that the decision rendered by another Division Bench in the case of Vidya Sagar Sharma v. Deputy director of Education, Meerut, Writ Petn. No. 6449 of 1974 decided on December 17, 1977 did not lay down the law correctly and the same requires reconsideration.

( 2 ) THE controversy raised in this case centres round Clauses (1) to (3) of Regulation 6, Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Before analysing the said provisions we may briefly set out the essential facts. The petitioner as well as Smt. Pushpa Nair (respondent No. 3) were L. T, Grade teachers in the maharaja Agrasen Girls Intermediate College. Deoria. Respondent No. 3 was a graduate with economics as one of the subjects. The petitioner was also graduate, but with different subjects. Both have since passed M. A. in Economics by correspondence course. Respondent No. 3 has been teaching Economics as L. T. grade teacher. But the petitioner has had no such experience. She was teaching English throughout. In length of service in this grade, the petitioner was admittedly senior to Smt. Pushpa Nair. In 1979 a vacancy arose in the lecturers grade for teaching Economics in Intermediate classes. Lecturers Grade is the next higher grade to the L. T. grade. The appointment was required to be made by promotion on the basis of merit. The managing Committee of the institution considered the cases of the petitioner and Smt. Pushpa nair. Upon comparison of their academic qualifications and teaching experience etc. , the committee passed a resolution proposing respondent No. 3 for appointment to the post. The same has been sent for approval of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools (r. I. G. S. for short ). The latter accepted the proposal whereupon the respondent No. 3 has been appointed as lecturer in Economics.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the decision of the Managing Committee as well as the approval accorded by the R. I. G. S. the petitioner filed this petition on the ground, among others, that since she was senior to Smt. Pushpa Nair, she had a preferential claim for being, promoted in view of Clause (3) of Regulation 6. It was asserted that the petitioner undeniably had the requisite minimum academic qualifications being M. A. in Economics. Therefore, she ought to have been preferred even though she had had no teaching experience in Economics.

( 4 ) THE Division Bench referring the case is of opinion that teaching experience in the concerned subject in the L. T. grade is not an essential qualification for appointment in the Lecturers Grade. For want of such experience, the preferential claim of a senior teacher for promotion could not be ignored. If the teacher possesses the minimum qualification and also seniority, he or she ought to be promoted. This is how the learned Judges have observed. "in our opinion, if a teacher in the L. T. grade possesses the prescribed minimum educational qualification of having a Masters degree in the subject, in which there is a vacancy in the lecturers grade, he or she would be entitled to promotion provided he or she fulfils the other requirements enumerated in Clauses (1), (2) and (3) of Regulation 6. There is nothing in these clauses of Regulation 6 to warrant the possession of experience in teaching in that subject. That very fact that a person possesses the postgraduate degree in the subject concerned is sufficient to consider him fit for promotion to the lecturers grade. "

( 5 ) FOR appreciating the question raised, it will now be necessary to examine the relevant statutory provisions. Clauses (1), (2) and (3) of Regulation 6 read as follows : " (1) Where any vacancy in the lecturers grade in the L. T. Grade as determined under regulation 6, is to be filled by promotion, all teachers working in the L. T, or C. T. grade, as the case may be, having a minimum of five years continuous substantive service to their credit on the