K. N. Singh, J. - (1.) HE petitioner is an Assistant TeacHEr in Kanhaya Lal D A.V. Inter College, Roorkee, district Saharanpur, an institution recognised by tHE Board of High School and Intermediate Education. Suresh Chand Gupta is anotHEr Assistant TeacHEr of tHE said College. In 1973, a vacancy arose in tHE post of Lecturer in Economics for Intermediate classes. THE Committee of Management decided to fill tHE vacancy by promotion. A Selection Committee was constituted which interviewed and considered tHE claims of tHE teacHErs THE Selection Committee forwarded tHE name of Suresh Chandra Gupta at tHE first place and tHE petitioner's name at tHE second place for appointment to tHE post of Lecturer. THE District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 22nd August, 1973, approved tHE petitioner's name for appointment to tHE post of Lecturer. He did not approve tHE name of Suresh Chandra Gupta on tHE ground that HE had no teaching experience in tHE subject of Economics. Suresh Chandra Gupta tHEreupon filed as suit No. 232 of 1973 in tHE court of tHE Munsif, Roorkee, and obtained an injunction against tHE order of tHE District Inspector of Schools. Later on, tHE Committee of Management contested tHE suit, as a result of which tHE' injunction was vacated. During tHE pendency of tHE suit Suresh Chandra Gupta respondent appears to have made a representation to tHE Deputy Director of Education against tHE order of tHE District Inspector of Schools. THE Deputy Director of Education by his order dated 8th June, 1974, allowed tHE representation of Sri Gupta and set aside tHE order of tHE District Inspector of Schools dated 22nd August, 1973. Aggrieved, tHE petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of tHE Constitution challenging tHE validity of tHE order of tHE Deputy Director of Education. Learned counsel for tHE petitioner urged that tHE Deputy Director of Education had no jurisdiction to entertain any representation on behalf a rival candidate, namely, Suresh Chandra Gupta, against tHE order of tHE District Inspector of Schools approving tHE petitioner's appointment. He furtHEr urged that tHE order of tHE Deputy Director of Education was passed without giving any opportunity to tHE petitioner. Under section 16-F (2) tHE District Inspector of Schools or tHE Regional Deputy Director of Education, as tHE case may be, is empowered to accord approval to tHE appointment of a teacHEr and HEad of tHE institution. Sub-section (3) of section 16F lays down that wHEre tHE District Inspector of Schools disapproves tHE proposal of tHE Committee of Management, tHE latter may make a representation within three weeks to tHE Deputy Director of Education. THE right to make representation is expressly conferred on tHE management in case its proposal is disapproved by tHE District Inspector of Schools. A teacHEr whose appointment is not approved by tHE District Inspector of Schools has no right to make representation before tHE Deputy Director of Education. In tHE instant case, tHE Committee of Management forwarded tHE proposal to tHE District Inspector of Schools seeking approval to tHE appointment of Suresh Chandra Gupta as Lecturer in tHE subject of Economics. THE Committee furtHEr had proposed tHE petitioner's name at serial No. 2 in tHE waiting list for appointment to tHE said post. THE Disfrict Inspector of Schools disapproved tHE proposal of tHE Committee of Management relating to tHE appointment of respondent Suresh Chand Gupta, instead HE approved tHE petitioner's name for appointment to tHE said post. THEreafter, tHE Committee of Management was tHE only competent authority to make representation before tHE Deputy Director against tHE order of tHE District Inspector of Schools. THE representation of Suresh Chandra Gupta was not maintainable under section 16-F (3) of tHE Act. THErefore tHE Deputy Director of Education had no authority in law to entertain tHE representation or to set aside tHE order of tHE District Inspector of Schools. In Rajendra Tripathi v. THE Deputy Director of Education (I) it was HEld that in tHE absence of any representation as contemplated by sub-section (3) of section 16-F of tHE Act, tHE Deputy Director of Education has no authority or jurisdiction to set aside tHE order of tHE District Inspector of Schools. THE Act and tHE Regulations framed tHEreunder do not confer any right of representation to a rival candidate to challenge tHE order of tHE District Inspector of Schools granting or refusing approval. We are in agreement with tHE view expressed in Rajendra Tripathi's case. We are furtHEr of tHE opinion that tHE Deputy Director of Education being a statutory authority could not exercise any power or jurisdiction not vested in him by tHE Act or tHE Regulations framed tHEreunder and as such tHE impugned order of tHE Deputy Director is liable to be quasHEd. THEre is no dispute that tHE Deputy Director did not afford any opportunity to tHE petitioner before setting aside tHE order of tHE District Inspector of Schools. Learned counsel for tHE respondent urged that tHE order of tHE District Inspector of Schools disapproving tHE proposal of tHE Committee of Management for tHE appointment of Suresh Chandra Gupta as Lecturer in tHE subject of Economics was without jurisdiction and tHErefore this court should not interfere with tHE order of tHE Deputy Director of Education. It is contended that since tHE petitioner's name was in tHE waiting list of candidates tHE District Inspector of Schools had no authority to approve his name, instead HE should have directed tHE Committee of Management to hold fresh selection. We find no merit in this contention. Chapter II of tHE Regulations contained provisions relating to appointment of teacHErs. Regulations 9 (d) lays down that tHE Selection Committee shall prepare a note of tHE proceedings of tHE selection HEld and record its observation on tHE suitability or otHErwise of each candidate. THE name of tHE selected candidate along with two otHErs in tHE waiting list drawn up in order of merit and tHE list and note signed by tHE members shall be forwarded to tHE Inspector for approval. Regulation 20 of Chapter III of tHE Regulations lays down that selection for promotion to a higHEr grade of teacHEr shall be made on tHE basis of length of service, achievement in service, academic qualification and integrity. If none of tHE teacHErs of tHE institution concerned satisfy tHEse qualifications selection shall be made by direct recruitment. In tHE instant case, tHE Committee of Management had already decided to fill tHE post of Lecturer in Economics by promotion and for that purpose a Selection Committee had been constituted. THE Selection Committee in accordance to regulations 9 and 20 recommended tHE name of Suresh Chandra Gupta, but in tHE alternative it had furtHEr recommended tHE petitioner's name at serial No. 2 for tHE Lecturer's post. THE District Inspector of Schools in exercising his jurisdiction under section 16-F (2) was entitled to consider tHE suitability of those recommended for promotion. THE District Inspector of Schools was of tHE opinion that since Suresh Chandra Gupta had been teaching tHE subject of Biology and since HE had no teaching experience in tHE subject of Economics HE was not suitable for promotion to tHE post of Lecturer in Economics, on tHE otHEr hand, since tHE petitioner possessed teaching experience in tHE subject of Economics to High School classes tHE District Inspector of Schools considered him suitable for tHE post of Lecturer in Economics. For tHEse reasons tHE District Inspector of Schools disapproved tHE proposal for tHE appointment of Suresh Chandra Gupta, instead HE approved tHE petitioner's appointment to tHE said post. We are of tHE opinion that tHE District Inspector of Schools did not exceed his authority in approving tHE petitioner's name for appointment to tHE post of Lecturer in Economics. Learned counsel for tHE respondents tHEn urged that regulation 18 as contained in Chapter III does not lay down that tHE teaching experience should be in tHE subject concerned for which tHE appointment may be made. On a reasonable interpretation of regulation 18, it would always be conducive to efficiency in teaching if tHE teaching experience is in tHE subject concerned for which vacancy may have occurred. A person teaching Biology cannot be better equipped to teach Economics than a person teaching Economics. In tHE result, we allow tHE petition and quash tHE order of tHE Deputy Director of Education dated 8th June, 1974. THE petitioner is entitled to his costs.;