- (1.) HEARD learned Standing Counsel, and Sri J.C. Srivastava learned counsel for the claimant respondents and also perused record.
(2.) PRESENT writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred against the impugned order passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, dated 31.1.1997 by which the Tribunal has set aside the order by which the claimant respondents' promotional avenue was cancelled. Brief facts giving rise to the dispute, are discussed hereinafter. Claimant respondent No. Chhavi Nath Yadav was appointed as Class-IV employee in the respondent Institution namely, Rajkiya Ashram Paddhati Vidyalaya Inter College, Rampur (in short the Institution). The claimant respondent No. 2 Munshi Singh Yadav was also appointed as Class-IV employee on 12.8.1995. The Institution falls in the Department of Social Welfare, Government of UP. The qualification of claimant respondent No. 1 is, B. Sc., B. Ed., and that of claimant respondent No. 2 is, M.A., B.Ed. The Principal of the Institution promoted the claimant respondent No. 1 against the Cadre of H.T.C. Teacher, who teaches Science and Mathematics. The claimant respondent No. 2 was also promoted on the post of Assistant Teacher for English in Junior High School Classes. When this fact came to knowledge of the Department that a Class-IV employee has been promoted on the post of Assistant Teacher/Teacher, by the order dated 14.11.1995, the promotional order was cancelled on the ground that a Class-IV employee straight way cannot be promoted to the Cadre of teacher. It is further pointed out that order of cancelling the promotional order, was passed on the ground that promotion of H.T.C. Teacher is done by the Director, Social Welfare Department on the basis of recommendation of U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission. The Rajkiya Ashram Paddhati Vidyalaya Inter College, Rampur i.e., the Institution, is a recognised Institution under the provisions of U.P. High School and Intermediate EducationAct, 1921 (in short the Act). Accordingly, the provisions contained n the Act, are applicable.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved with the cancellation of promotional order, the claimant respondents approached the Tribunal with the plea that the Principal of the College is competent to promote the incumbent against Class-IV post in view of Regulations framed under Section 16 ka, kha and ga, of the Act. It is pleaded by the learned Standing Counsel that Class-IV employee cannot be promoted in the Cadre of Teacher. It is also pleaded that the seniority list of LT Grade Teachers was also prepared under the Act. A plea is raised by the learned counsel for the claimant respondents that before cancelling the order of promotion, no show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing was given. Hence the order of cancellation, suffers from substantial illegality.;