PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri S.K.Upadhya, learned counsel appearing as an Intervenor.

(2.) Under challenge is the order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Lucknow i.e respondent no. 2 by which it has been found that the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Clerk and the subsequent approval granted by the District Inspector of Schools is vitiated and consequently the respondent no. 2 has directed for initiation of inquiry against the guilty employees after cancelling the promotion of the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a recommendation for promotion of the petitioner who was working on a Class IV post in the Institution to the post of Assistant Clerk was made on 10.11.2016. As on 10.11.2016, there were five posts in the Institution. i.e one post of Head Clerk and four posts of Assistant Clerks whereby taking the total to five posts. In terms of Regulation 2 (2) of Chapter III of Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1921"), the post of Head Clerk and Assistant Clerk are clubbed so as to arrive at the quota for promotion or direct recruitment per which the appointments or promotions are to take place on the said posts. The said Regulation provides that 50 percent posts out of total sanctioned post of Head Clerk and clerical cadre shall be filled by promotion of Clerks and Class IV employees working in the organization. In terms of Note to Regulation 2, it is provided that while computing 50% of the post, the number of post less than half should be ignored and half or more than half should be treated as one, as such, in this case, it would be 2.5 or three posts for promotion.