VIJAY NARAIN SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J The petitioners claims that they should have been promoted from C. T. Grade to L. T. Grade on account of their eligibility in the 40% quota for promotion as provided under Regulation 5 (2) (a), Chapter II of the Regulation framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. Instead the respondents by the impugned order dated 17-9-85 con firmed and regularised the appointments of three teachers who were engaged in 1978 by way of regularisation. This order has been challenged in the writ petition. In the counter-affidavit it has been pointed out that on the date when the vacancy occurred the petitioners were not eligible for being promoted and therefore the promotion cannot be given.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Coun sel.

(3.) IN the present case it is alleged that the petitioners were appointed as assistant teacher in C. T. grade w. e. f 8-9-72 and 6-1-73 with substantive capacity and were con firmed after expiry of probationary period. Such statement has been made in para 3 of the writ petition. IN para 5 of the writ petition it has been pointed out that the vacancy was illegally advertised on 30-6-77 in Northern INdia Patrika. A copy whereof is Annexure-I to the writ petition. If the advertisement is issued on 30-6-77 the vacancy must have occurred either on 30-6-77 or prior thereto. Even if it is taken into consideration that the vacancy had occurred on 30-6-77 even then none of the petitioners have in their credit continuous five years substantive service. INasmuch as the petitioner No. 1 would be completed five years only on 8-9-77 whereas the petitioner No. 2 would be completed the same period on 6-1-78. Therefore, as dis closed the petitioners did not possess the primary qualifications namely five years continuous service on the date the vacancy was occurred. Therefore, they cannot claime promotion on the said vacancy in the 40% quota as claimed by them.