AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.
The petitioner was admittedly appointed as a L.T. grade teacher in the institution on 12.8.1998. The date of occurrence of the vacancy on the post of Lecturer is 30.6.2003.
The petitioner who was appointed substantively in L.T. grade claims promotion on the post of Lecturer. The eligibility that has to be taken into consideration is the first day of the year of the recruitment which in the present case is First of July 2003.
Admittedly on the said date the petitioner had not completed five years of regular continuous service as contemplated under the Rules as a substantive appointee in the L.T.grade.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the selections were held in February 2003 and the panel had already been issued therefore the said period should also be counted.
The aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived inasmuch as the rules clearly require regular continuous service on the post and mere empaneling, does not amount to rendering continuous service as referred to in the rules. The service in the L.T. grade commenced from 12.8.98 and not on any date prior to that when he was selected or empanelled.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.