MALTI SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Dr. H.N. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.K. Singh Vashistha, Advocate for the contesting respondent No.6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) The present petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the Regional Committee, Bareilly Region, Bareilly dated 14th Nov., 2011 approving the promotion of the 6th respondent as Lecturer (Hindi) within 50 per cent quota reserved as per the Regulation 5 of Chapter II of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 taking recourse to the procedure prescribed vide Regulation 14 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Regulations, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations, 1998').

(3.) Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the institution in question on 15th July, 1980 as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade, whereas the respondent No. 6 was appointed in the same category on 1st July, 1980. So, as per the records pertaining to the initial appointment, the 6th respondent got appointed prior in point of time and that appointment of the petitioner is subsequent to that of the petitioner.