PARMATMA NAND YADAV Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Special Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 9th September, 1994 passed in writ petition No. 21389 of 1990, by which the learned Single Judge has rejected the claim of the appellant for the promotion to the post of L.T. grade with effect from 1-1-1990.

(2.) The factual gamut of the case reveals that the appellant was appointed in C.T. grade on ad hoc basis on 19-10-1982 under the pro visions of Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 read with the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Service and Selection Board Act, 1982, (hereinafter called the Act No. 5 of 1982). The appellant joined the service on 22-10-1982 and he was regularised on the said post under the provisions of Section 33-A of the Act No. 5 of 1982 with effect from 12-1-1986. On 1-1-1990 a short term vacancy came into existence as one Shri Satyadeo Singh, an L.T. grade teacher was promoted as lecturer. The appellant claimed that he should be promoted in the L.T. grade, as the respondent No. 2 did not favour the appellant he filed the representation before the respondents No. 1 and 3. As the appellant could not succeed even before them, he preferred the writ petition No. 21389 of 1990 before this Court. During the pendency of the said writ petition before this Court the respondent No. 4 was directly appointed as a teacher in L.T. grade in the subject of Economics on 23-10-1990. The appellant-petitioner amended the writ petition challenging the appointment of respondent No. 4 also. In the meantime the appellant was also promoted to L.T. grade with effect from 1-9-1991. The issue agitated by the appellant before the learned Single Judge had been whether appellant was entitled for promotion on the vacancy which occurred in the subject of Economics in spite of the fact that the appellant was not C. T. grade teacher in the said subject. The learned Single Judge rejected the claim of the appellant holding that none of the teacher in the institution was eligible to be promoted in L.T. grade vacancy in Economics, thus the respondent No. 1 was right to appoint the respondent No. 4 by direct recruitment. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Heard Shri S.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Dinesh Dwivedi and learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents.