Vijay Bahuguna, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who was working as an ad -hoc Lecturer in History in the Public Inter College, Motihan Allahabad, has by means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the legality of the order of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission dated 29th of January, 1992. The facts in brief are that after the death of Sri Raghunath Singh, the Committee of Management had appointed the petitioner on ad -hoc basis as Lecturer in History on 11 -5 -1989. As required under the Rules his papers and the papers of respondent No. 6 were sent for approval to the Commission. The Commission vide its order dated 29th January, 1992 has approved the appointment of Sri Ram Nawal Singh the respondent No. 6 in place of the petitioner. The procedure for appointment by promotion is provided for in Rule 9 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983. Sub -Rule (1) of Rule 9 reads as under: - - (1) Where any vacancy is to be filled by promotion, all teachers working in L.T. or C.T., Grade, who posses the minimum qualifications and have put in at least 5 years continuous service as teacher on the date of occurrence of vacancy shall be considered for promotion to the Lecturer of L.T. Grade, as the case may be, without their having applied for the same. A perusal of Rule 9(1) makes it clear that for being considered for promotion it is necessary that a teacher has worked in L.T. or C.T. Grade for at least 5 years continuously and possesses the minimum qualifications on the date of occurrence of vacancy. It is not disputed that the vacancy occurred on the 11th of May, 1989. It is also not disputed that the petitioner did not possess the minimum qualifications on the date on which the vacancy occurred. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was not necessary for the petitioner to possess the minimum qualifications on the date on which the vacancy occurred as he had attained the necessary qualifications on the date on which the management had decided to make the ad -hoc appointment. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a decision in Yagendra Nath Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and another : (1991) 1 UPLBEC 484. The view taken in the said decision is that in making an ad -hoc appointment under Section 18(1)(b) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982, the date relevant for considering the qualification is the date on which the management decides to make an ad -hoc appointment and not the date of occurrence of vacancy. The above decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case as it is not a case of an ad -hoc appointment, but a case of promotion, Rule 9(1) is very clear and it states in express words that minimum qualifications have to be looked info on the date of occurrence of vacancy. The vacancy in this case occurred on the death of a permanent teacher. Rule 2(hh) defines vacancy thus: (2)(hh) "Vacancy" means a vacancy arising out as a result of death, retirement, resignation, termination, dismissal, creation of new post or appointment/promotion of the incumbent to any higher post in a substantive capacity. As the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications on the date of the occurrence of the vacancy he was not eligible for being considered for promotion and as such the impugned order of the Commission does not suffer from any infirmity in law justifying interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the petitioner would have appeared in the written examination before the occurrence of the vacancy he could have been considered for promotion, but the examinations were held after the vacancy occurred and as such his case will not be covered by the mandatory provisions of Rule 9(1).
(2.) IT was next contended on behalf of the petitioner that no opportunity was given to the petitioner by the Commissioner before passing the impugned order. In cases of mere approval on recommendations made by the Committee of Management it is not obligatory on the part of the Commission to follow principles of natural justice as the duties performed by it are merely of administrative nature. In case there is any dispute with regard to facts, it is always open to - the Commission to make such further queries from the Committee of Management or the concerned teacher as it thinks necessary. But in the facts of the present case, it is admitted by the petitioner that on the date of occurrence of vacancy, that is, on 11 -5 -1989, he had not obtained the requisite qualifications to be eligible for being considered for promotion. There is no merit in this petition. It is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.;