being assume that the Appellant had legitimate remedy of appeal under section 9 of the Act. The moot question is: whether the Appellant can claim the benefit of deemed permanency in the fact situation of the present case. The learned Single Judge after adverting to the factual matrix of the case has unhesitatingly opined that the Appellant was appointed as full time teacher against the permanent vacancy. But, at the relevant time, he did not possess the requisite qualification and that when he acquired qualification in August, 1995, the permanent vacancy in which he was working earlier was unavailable. It is on this factual matrix, the learned Single Judge found that it was not open to the Appellant to claim benefit of deemed permanency under section 5(2) of the Act. The view so taken by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, is unexceptionable. In that, if the Appellant did not possess requisite qualification at the relevant time, the question of appointing him on permanent basis would not arise at all. Inasmuch as, on conjoint reading of Section 5(2) of the Act read with Rule 6 and Schedule B, it necessarily follows that only qualified person can be appointed on permanent basis against a permanent vacancy. In Priyadarshini Education Trust(Supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held that in order to claim benefit of deemed permanency, a teacher must be duly selected, is appointed in clear permanent vacancy, his appointment must not be for a
