SATYENDRA MISHRA Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. After the elevation of learned Counsel who was represent ing respondent No. 5, Smt. Usha Srivatava notice was issued to her to engage another Counsel. However, she did not engage any other Counsel. Accordingly, on the date of hearing arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were heard.

(2.) RAJARSHI Tandon Balika Mahavidalaya, Bhatpar Rani, district Deoria is recognised aided intermediate college governed by provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and U. P. Payment of Salary Act (U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971 and U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982. Smt. Sujana Yunis, a teacher in L. T. Grade was promoted to the post of Principal af ter retirement of the Principal. Petitioner who was working in C. T. Grade was promoted to the post of L. T. Grade which fell vacant due to promotion of Smt. Sujana Yunis as Principal. Smt. Sujana Yunis was appointed as Principal on 29. 10. 1979. R. I. G. S. approved the promotion of the petitioner through order dated 1. 2. 1980. Through impugned order dated 2. 6. 1987, Annexure-2 to the writ petition passed by Additional Director of Education (Secondary) U. P. the order of R. I. G. S. dated 1. 2. 1980 through which promotion of the petitioner was approved was set aside. However, representation of the respondent No. 5, Smt. Usha Srivastava was also rejected.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has cited a Division Bench author ity in B. P. Tripathi v. State of U. P. , 1985 UPLBEC 669=1985 (11) ALR 114 (Sum) holding that for promotion an eligible candidate must be considered and it is not necessary that a teacher teaching particular subject only should be considered.