Brahm Prakash Pandey and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Adarsh Bhusan for the petitioners.

The petitioners claim promotion as assistant teachers in L.T. Grade under Regulation 7(2)(a) of Chapter II of the regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 read with the provisions of Rule 10(c) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules 1998. They submit that the appointment of the respondent No. 8 by direct recruitment prejudices the right of the petitioners who are entitled to occupy the said posts by way of promotion under the provisions of Rule 10(c) of the 1998 Rules.

Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 8 and the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent Nos. 1 to 7 submit that the aforesaid claim of the petitioners cannot be considered inasmuch as their promotions are sought to be made under the notification dated 26.02.2003 which could not have been done in the absence of Rules inasmuch as promotions are now governed by the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 and 1998 Rules framed thereunder.

Learned Counsel for the respondents rely on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 950 of 2005 Narendra Singh and Ors. v. Shri Jata Shanker Sharma and Ors. decided on 28th January, 2009.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties it is evident from the judgment of the Division Bench aforesaid that the criteria for promotion under the 25% quota as claimed by the petitioners became available after the 1998 Rules which were introduced through a notification dated 25 November, 2005. In such a situation, the petitioners could have been considered for promotion after the enforcement of the said Rules. The recruitment of the respondent No. 8 has been made prior to the said date and therefore the challenge to the recruitment of the respondent No. 8 cannot be sustained.

However, keeping in view the fact that Rules had been framed under the notification dated 25th November, 2005, the petitioners against the existing posts and in accordance with the 25% promotion quota deserve to be considered afresh in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench referred to herein above.

Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to issue necessary orders in the light of the observations made herein above. In case the petitioners have already been considered for promotions under the aforesaid notification and in accordance with 25% quota which are available under the existing posts orders shall be passed accordingly. Necessary orders shall be issued within six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the respondent No. 3. The writ petition stands finally disposed of.