Yashoda Nandan, J. - (1.) The petitioner Radhey Shyam Singh and respondent no. 6 Sri Nar Singh Pandey were both at the relevant time employed as assistant teachers in Science in the National Intermediate College, Kasim-abad, post office Kasimabad, district Ghazipur. Initially they were both in the L.T. Grade A vacancy arose in the grade of lecturer for teaching Science. Respondent no. 5 proceeded to fill in the post by direct recruitment and the Selection Committee placed the name of respondent no. 6. Nar Singh Pandey at serial no. 1 and that of the petitioner at serial no. 2. The Committee of Management approving the recommendation of the Selection Committee passed a resolution for appointment of respondent no. 6 as lecturer. The recommendation of the Selection Committee along with the resolution of the Committee of Management deciding to appoint respondent no. 6, was sent to the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools declined to accord approval to the appointment of respondent no. 6 as lecturer. It is not quite clear as to how the matter reached the Deputy Director of Education but by means of an order dated 11-4-1972 the Deputy Director of Education upheld the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools withholding approval of the appointment of respondent no. 6 in the lecturers grade of the college. In his order the Deputy Director of Education observed that from the material before him it appeared that the petitioner was comparatively more qualified than respondent no 6 and the Committee of Management would have done well to have promoted him to the lecturers grade. Thereafter by a resolution dated 20th of August, 1972 the Committee of Management decided to promote the petitioner to the lectuers grade. On the 5th of September, 1978. Undisputably the Committee of Management sent the relevant papers and a copy of resolution dated 20th of August, 1972 for approval to the District Inspector of Schools. In the meanwhile from the allegations contained in the petition it appear that against some order dated 20th of August, 1972 which is not to be found on the record the then President of the College filed an appeal before the Addl. Director of Education at Allahabad. It also appears that respondent no. 6 gave notice of some writ petition which was proposed to be filed in this court to the standing counsel. The District Inspector of Schools seems to have been under the impression that because a writ petition was proposed to be filed and some appeal at the instance of Nar Singh Pandey (President of the College) was pending before the Addl. Director of Education against the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 5th of September, 1972, he need not decile the question of granting or withholding of approval to the resolution of Committee of Management, dated 20th of August, 1972. The result was that within a period of two weeks of receipt of the proposal of the Committee of Management to promote the petitioner to the lecturers grade, the District Inspector of Schools passed no order either approving or disapproving the resolution of Committee of Management, dated 20th of August, 1972. The Committee of Management also, it appears passed no order promoting the petitioner as a lecturer of the College. The matter remained pending trial the 18th of March, 1974 when the Committee of Management passed a resolution recutting its earlier resolution dated 20th of August, 1972 to which a reference has been jade in an earlier part of this judgment and promoting respondent no. 6 to the lecturers grade. The resolution of Committee of Management dated 18th of March, 1974 was sent by responder.t no. 5 for approval to respondent no. 4. The District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 14th of June 1974 approved the proposal and directed that with effect from 8th July, 1974 Sri Nar Singh Pandey till be entitled to be appointed as a teacher in the lecturers grade on probation for a period of one year and that he would be entitled to the salary of a lecturer with effect from 8th July, 1974. By means of this petition, the petitioner challenges the resolution of the Committee of Management, dated 18th March, 1974 and the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 14th June, 1974, according approval to the promotion of respondent no. 6 to the lecturers grade.
(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed but the basic facts as stated above have not been controverted therein.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel representing respondent no. 6. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the remaining respondents and the standing counsel has not opposed this petition. Regulation 17 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act as it stood at the relevant time provided that norm only between ne-third to one-half of the vacancies in the posts of teachers in a grade will be filled by those promoted from the lower grade. Under Regulation 18 as it then stood teachers having five years continuous substantive service in an institution in the C.T. or J. B. T. C. (trained under-graduate and L. T. trained graduate), grades were eligible for promotion to the next higher grade provided they possessed the minimum academic qualifications prescribed for the grade. When the Committee of Management by its resolution dated 20th of August, 1972 passed a resolution for the promotion of the petitioner to the lecturers grade, it evidently acted on the basis of the above mentioned regulations. It is not in dispute that on the 5th of September, 1972 the Committee of Management complied with the requirement of Regulation 11 of Chapter II of the Regulations as then existing and sent to the District inspire.tor of Schools all relevant papers seeking his approval to the resolution dated 20th of August, 1972. It is also not in controversy that, whatever the reason might have been the District Inspector of Schools passed no order either approving of disapproving the proposal for promotion of the petitioner to the post of lecturer within two weeks of receipt of proposal of the Committee of Management. Documents were sent to him on 5th of September, 1972. On account of omission of the District Inspector of Schools, Under Section 16-F (2) he must be deemed to have accorded approval to the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 20th of August, 1972 and the petitioner became entitled to be promoted to the lecturers grade after a period of two weeks from 3th September, 1972 since by -operation of law the resolution of the Committee of Management, dated 20th of August, 1972 stood approved and it no longer remained open to the Committee of Management to ignore the statutory provisions and to recall its resolution dated 20th of August, 1972 as it did by resolution dated 11th March, 1974. Further since no vacancy was available on that date in that lecturer grade it was not open to the Committee of Management to promote respondent no. 6 to the post of lecturer s grade. The District Inspector of Schools, as already stated, by operation of law must be deemed to have accorded approval to the promotion of petitioner to the post of lecturer in consequence of the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 20th August, 1972. It was obviously not open to the District Inspector of Schools to undo the legal effect of his omission to act within two weeks of receipts of the papers with regard to the proposal of the Committee of Management by the subsequent order dated 14th June, 1974 which is under challenge, it is clear to us that the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 19th of March, 1974 as well as the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 14th June, 1974 are both illegal and unsustainable.;