IKRAMUL HAQ Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common questions of law and facts are Involved In both these petitions. They are being disposed of jointly. The reference to the petitioner and the respondents shall be taken from Writ Petition No. 4134 of 1997.

(2.) The dispute relates to the promotion to the post of Lecturer in Majldia Islamla Inter College. Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Institution). Ikramul Haq, petitioner and Mohammad Sabir, respondent No. 3 both are functioning as Assistant Teachers in L.T, grade in the Institution. One Mohammad Khalid was permanent lecturer in the Institution. He retired on 30th June, 1996, on attaining the age of superannuation and on his retirement, the post of lecturer fell vacant. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 both claimed promotion to the post of lecturer. The petitioner is admittedly senior to respondent No. 3. The dispute was that the petitioner was not eligible and qualified for appointment to the post of lecturer in Urdu and Persian on the date the vacancy came into existence on 30th June, 1996. In Wand Kishore v. U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission, Allahabad and others, (1993) 1 UPLBEC 201, it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that the qualification for promotion to the next higher grade shall be taken into consideration on the date of occurrence of vacancy.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the qualification for promotion to the post of lecturer In Urdu was M.A, in Urdu and Persian. The petitioner had appeared for M.A. (Previous) Examination in Persian from Allahabad University in the year, 1994. He appeared for M. A. (Final) Examination in the year, 1996. For M.A. (Persian) 1995 (Final) Examination five theory papers were conducted from 16.3.1996 to 30.5.1996 and viva voce was conducted from 10.6.1996. The provisional marks-sheet of the petitioner of M.A. (Persian) 1995 Examination was sent by Allahabad University to the Institution on 29.6.1996. It Is contended that the petitioner having passed the examination prior to the date of occurrence of vacancy was entitled to promotion in preference to respondent No. 3.