Yashoda Nandan, J. - (1.) This petition was dismissed by us summarily on the 4th February, 1980, when we directed that our reasons in support of the order shall be given by us subsequently. We are proceeding to do so.
(2.) The petitioner claims to have been employed as an Assistant teacher in the TTC grade at the Sri Bhagwan Das Inter College, district Etawah since July, 1962. In the year 1971 he obtained a Masters Degree in Sociology from the University of Kanpur as also a Bachelors Degree in Education in 1974 from the same University. In the year 1973, according to the petitioner, he was promoted to the CT grade as an Assistant Teacher. For a short while in the academic year 1974-75, the petitioner claims, he was promoted to the L.T. grade in a leave vacancy. The Board of High School and Intermediate Education accorded recognition to the College concerned to teach Sociology as a subject in the academic session 1966-67. No appointment to the lecturer's grade to teach Sociology was made till the year 1979 but according to the petitioner the Committee of Management asked him to look after the teaching of Sociology as a subject in the Intermediate classes and he continued to do so, though he was paid only the salary of a teacher in the C.T. grade. Some time in 1975, according to the petitioner, he was promoted on a permanent basis in the L.T. grade. On repeated demands being made by the petitioner for his substantive promotion to the lectures grade since he had been teaching the subject of sociology to Intermediate classes, the Committee of Management passed a resolution on the 20th June, 1979 deciding to promote him to the lecturers grade for the subject of Sociology. By the same resolution, the Committee of Management required the Manager to take steps to regularise his promotion. It is alleged that the Management of the College submitted all relevant papers to the District Inspector of Schools seeding his approval to the promotion of the petitioner to the lecturer's grade as required by Chapter II, Regulation 6 (5) of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The above-mentioned papers, it is stated, were received by respondent no. 1, the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah, on the 3rd August, 1979. By means of a communication dated 18th August, 1979, addressed to the Manager/Principal the D strict Inspector of Schools required the Management to furnish him the seniority list of the teachers of the College as also information regarding the percentage of posts in the College already filled in by promotion. It is alleged that the requirements of the letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 18th August, 1979 were complied with by the Management and requisite in formations were furnished to him on the 27th August, 1979. On the 17th October, 1979, the District Inspector of Schools through a fitter addressed to the Manager of the College informed him that since the petitioner had not served in the L.T grade in a substantive capacity for a period of five years, the proposal for promoting him to the lecturers grade could net approved By means of this petition, the petitioner prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of respondent no. 1 dated 17th October, 1979 as also tor such other writ, order or direction which this Court might think fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(3.) When the petition came up for admission, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time when the Committee of Management of the College passed the resolution for promotion 'of.the petitioner to the lecturers grade he possessed the minimum qualification as required by Section 16E (3) of the Act read with Regulation 1 and Appendix A of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act. It was urged that though Regulation 6 of Chapter II imposes a duty on Committee of Management to consider for promotion of such teachers as had put in a minimum of five years continuous substantive service in the L.T. grade for promotion to the lecturer s grade, since the petitioner possessed the minimum qualifications as required by the Act and the Regulations, he was not debarred from being considered for promotion on the basis of an application made. It was urged that the reasons given by the District Inspector or Schools for declining to approve the promotion of the petitioner to the lecturers grade were patently erroneous aDd the order dated 17th October, 1979 was consequently liable to be quashed.;