ADITYA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In compliance of order dated 5.12.2014, the petitioner has filed a supplementary-affidavit categorically stating that no eligibility list has been prepared by the respondents for purposes of promotion to the post of Assistant Teacher in Junior High School/Headmaster in Primary Schools and exercise for promotion is being undertaken on the basis of seniority list filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Heard counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Ms. Jyoti Sikka for respondent Nos. 2 and 4. With their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of finally without inviting counter-affidavit.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Assistant Teacher in different primary schools during the year 2009-10 and thereafter, on basis of option exercised by them, they were transferred to District Unnao, which is a different local area. The respondents are now undertaking the exercise for promotion, as provided under Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). For the said purpose, the respondents are required to prepare an eligibility list of candidates in order of seniority and place it before the Selection Committee. The eligibility for promotion is provided under Rule 8. The petitioners possess the requisite academic qualification and five years teaching experience, except petitioner No. 8. However, according to the petitioners, the respondents are not considering the petitioners for promotion on the ground that they have been transferred to District Unnao in the year 2012-13. It is contended that though for purposes of seniority, the petitioners, as provided under Rule 22, are to be placed at the bottom of the list of teachers of the corresponding class pertaining to local area but the experience gained by them prior to their transfer, is to be taken into consideration for purposes of grant of promotion.

(3.) Ms. Jyoti Sikka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 4 contended that there is no material on record to demonstrate that the respondents have refused to consider the candidature of the petitioners for promotion on such ground. She very fairly submits that teaching experience gained by the petitioners whether it be prior to their transfer to District Unnao or afterwards, has to be taken into consideration for the purposes of grant of promotion. She states that the case of the petitioners will also be taken into consideration in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 18. She further points out that the counseling was over on 10.12.2014.