Sudhir Narain, J.

1. The Appellants was appointed as ad hoc lecturer in Sanatan Dharm Intermediate College , Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as the college) by the Committee of Management by appointment letter dated 18th January, 1991. Suresh Pal, Respondent No. 3¡ filed a writ petition in this Court and the learned Single Judge found that he was entitled to be promoted as lecturer and therefore quashed the appointment of the Appellants to the post of lecturer in Economics and directed that -Respondent No. 3 be considered for appointment as a lecturer in Economics....

2. Suresh Pal, Respondent No. 3, was appointed as Assistant Teacher in L.T. grade in the college on 6th September," 1974. He was later on confirmed on the said post. One Sri N. C. Mittal was working as permanent lecturer in Economics. He retired on 30th June, 1988 and a vacancy to. the post of lecturer in Economics occurred. The Committee of Management, Respondent No. 2, intimated the vacancy of the post of lecturer in Economics . to the Higher Education Service Commission through District Inspector of Schools and further decided to make ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment. It advertised the post on 21st January, 1989. The Petitioner made representation to the Committee of Management that he was entitled to be promoted to the post of lecturer in Economics as he was duly qualified for the said post. The Committee of. Management, however, proceeded to make appointment through direct recruitment. The Appellants was selected for appointment to the post of lecturer in Economics and the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar, Respondent No. 1, gave approval for the said appointment and in pursuance of his approval an appointment letter was issued to the Appellants on 28th January, 1991. Respondent No. 3 claimed that he Was entitled -be promoted to the post of lecturer in Economics but as he was not promoted to the said post he filed a writ petition in this Court and the learned Single Judge took the view that as Respondent No. 3 was qualified and eligible for promotion, the appointment of the Appellants by direct recruitment was illegal.

3. We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the Appellants and Sri Ashok Bhusan learned counsel for the Respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that Respondent No. 3 was given pay scale of lecturer on 24th. January 1991 with effect from 1-1-1986 by the District Inspector of Schools in pursuance of the G.O. dated 28th February 1990 issued by the Government. After he was granted lecturers pay scale, he should be treated in lecturers grade and he could not have been promoted to the post of lecturer. It is only a teacher in L.T. grade who could be promoted to lecturers grade. He placed reliance upon Para 4 (2) of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 which reads as under:

Every vacancy in the post of a teacher in lecturers grade may be filed by promotion by the seniormost teacher of the institution in the trained graduate (L.T.) grade.

5. It was contended that various provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982) and the Removal of Difficulties Orders framed under the provisions of the said Act, contemplate three grades, namely, C.T. grade, L.T. grade and lecturers grade. Regulation 6 (1) of Chapter II of the Regulations of the contemplates L.T. grade and C.T. grade and similarly Rule 9 of U.P. Secondaryî education Services Commission Rules, 1983 also provides for the post of L.T. and C.T grades. The word used is "grade".

6. The Government issued an order dated 28th February 1990 which provided tint those teachers who were working in L.T. grade and were imparting education to students of 11 and 12 classes continuously for ten years shall be placed in lecturers pay scale with effect from the date of completion of ten years. Respondent No. 3 in pursuance of the said Government Order was given lecturers pay scale on 24th January 1991 with effect from 1-1-1986. As he was given lecturers pay scale with effect from 1-1-1986 he should be treated in lecturers grade and he cannot claim promotion to the post of lecturer. The grade should be taken as equivalent to pay scale inasmuch as it is pay scale which makes the difference in grades. This submission of the learned counsel for the Appellants, if accepted, would result in anomalous position. A teacher may be given lecturers pay scale even though there is no vacancy to the post of lecturer. The grant of lecturers pay scale is not correlated with the filling of vacancy in a particular post. In a college where teachers are appointed in L.T. grade and they are given lecturers pay scale, then in that situation there would not occur any vacancy to the post of lecturer and on the other hand the post may not exist but the teachers are given lecturers pay scale. The word "grade" has different connotation in the context of a particular Statute.

7. In A. K. Subraman v. Union of India, : 1975 (1) SCC 319 , [LQ/SC/1974/413] the Supreme Court, while considering the meaning of grade, took the view that the word grade has various shades of meaning. The relevant observation may be quoted hereunder:

Now the question which arises for consideration is what is the meaning of the words "vacancies in the grade of Executive Engineer" as used in the aforesaid paragraph of Rule 4 (2). When does a vacancy in the grade of Executive Engineer arise To answer this question it is necessary to ascertain what are the posts which the grade "of Executive Engineer consists of. for the vacancies can only be in the posts in the grade of Executive Engineer. The word "grade" has various shades of meaning in, the service jurisprudence. It is sometimes used to denote a pay scale and sometimes a cadre. Here it is obviously used in the sense of cadre. A cadre may consist only, of permanent posts or sometimes, as it quite common these days, also of temporary posts.

8. Learned counsel for the Appellants placed reliance upon Hari Nandau Saran v. S. N. Dikshit : AIR 1970 SC 40 [LQ/SC/1969/188] , in which it was held that the officials holding posts in the same scale of pay shall be taken, to be on same grade. This case has no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the Appellants is claiming that he was also on the same scale of pay as that of Respondent No. 3 and there was any "discrimination against him.

9. The word "grade" used in para 4 (2) of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, Rule 9 of U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules 1983 and Regulation 6 of Chapter II of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 must be taken as "post" of lecturer. A teacher, who is working in L.T. grade, is to be promoted to the post of lecturers grade in the sense that he is to be promoted to the post of lecturer in an institution. A teacher may be given lecturers pay scale but he may not be given the post. Unless he is given a post the mere fact that he has been given lecturers pay-scale will not be taken as to have given him the post of lecturer unless he is duly promoted to the said post in accordance with „ the provisions of a Statute.

10. The vacancy to the post of lecturer fell vacant on the retirement of Sri N. C. Mittal on 30th January, 1988 who was a lecturer in Economics. Respondent No. 3 was given lecturers pay scale by the District Inspector of Schools by order dated 24th January 1991 with effect from 1-1-1986 and if it is taken that Respondent No. 3 was already a lecturer in Economics there was no question of occurrence of any vacancy to the said post. There is No. dispute that the post was treated as vacant on the retirement of Sri N. C. Mittal and therefore the Appellants was appointed to the said post by direct recruitment ignoring the claim of Respondent No. 3.

11. There is another aspect of the matter that the vacancy to the post of lecturer in Economics was notified by the Committee of Management to the Commission on 21st January 1989 and Respondent No. 3 was given lecturers pay scale on 24th January 1991 with effect from 1 -- 1 -- 1986. In case he is taken to have been promoted to lecturers grade, there was no occasion for issuing any appointment letter to . the Appellants to the said r post. Respondent No. 3 was already claiming right of promotion to the said post and on the grant of lecturers pay scale he could have been taken to have been promoted to the said post. The District Inspector of Schools himself did not treat Respondent No. 3 as a lecturer in Economics and therefore permitted the Appellants to be appointed on the post of lecturer in Economics in the college. It is thus clear that even though Respondent no. 3 was -given lecturers pay scale he was not treated to have been appointed to. the post of lecturer in Economics in the college.

12. The promotion to the post of lecturer is to be made in accordance with the manner provided under Section 18 ofNo. 5 of 1982 which read as under:

Section 18 (1) (b)-the post of such teacher has actually remained vacant for more then two months, then, the management may appoint, by direct recruitment (sic) a teacher on purely ad hoc basis from amongst the persons possessing qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made thereunder.

This provision contemplated a post on which promotion is to be made and further prescribes certain qualifications for promotion.

13. The seniority of a teacher of lecturers grade is also to be considered from the date of appointment to the post in lecturers grade and not from the date of payment of lecturers pay scale. Regulation 3 of Chapter II of Regulations of the Intermediate Education Act contemplates seniority from the date of appointment and the same principle has to be made applicable in case of persons appointed on ad hoc basis. The seniority cannot be fixed on the basis of grant of pay scale given by the Government under its own orders.

14. As held by a Division Bench of this Court in Charu Chandra Tiwari v. D.I.O.S., (1990) 1 UP LB EC 160 direct recruitment is permissible only when eligible teacher for promotion is not available in the institution. As Committee of Management did not consider the case of promotion of Respondent No. 3 to the post of lecturer in Economics in the college, the appointment of the Appellants to the post by direct recruitment was rightly set aside.

15. In the result there is no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs.