- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned Government Order dated 10. 04. 2003, by which it has deleted clause (1) of Rule 54 of the U. P. Subordinate Education Service Rules, 1992.
(2.) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner is working as a Head Master of the Junior High School and his services are governed by the provisions of the Basic Education Teachers Service Rules, 1981 read with provisions of the Basic Education Act, 1972. The services of Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools/assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari/basic Shiksha Adhikari are governed by the provisions of the U. P. Subordinate Education Service Rules, 1992, hereinafter called the 'rules 1992'. Rule 5 thereof provides that 10 percent of the vacancies on the post of Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools/assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari shall be filled up by promotion from amongst the Head Master/head Mistress of Junior High School having 10 years' experience of service. The petitioner is eligible to be considered for the promotion to the said post under Rules 1992 but by impugned amendment dated 10th April, 2003, by which clause (1) of Rule 54 has been deleted, the petitioner has no chance of promotion, though his case was being considered. Hence this petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the existing Rules, the petitioner had become eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools/assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari in 1994 on completing 10 years service as a Head Master and the impugned amendment had taken away the right accrued to him under the existing law. Petitioner had legitimate expectation for promotion. The amendment suffers from arbitrariness and, thus, liable to be quashed. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that no person has a right to be appointed either by direct recruitment or by promotion, even the petitioner whose name appears in the panel, does not have a right to appointment, and unless the order is communicated to person concerned, it does not become effective. Merely because the petitioner's case was considered under the old existing Rules, the same does not confer any right upon him for appointment/consideration. The State is competent to change the service conditions unilaterally and amend the Rules to make a person ineligible for promotion. Thus, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) WE have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Undoubtedly, petitioner has more than 10 years' experience as a Head Master. It Is alleged by the petitioner that certain information had been sought from him for considering his candidature for promotion, but the question does arise as to whether any person has a right to appointment and even a candidate whose name appeared in the panel, can claim the appointment as a matter of right and even if appointment is made and the order has not been communicated to the selectee, whether it becomes effective and whether the service conditions of a person can be changed unilaterally to the extent that he may be deprived of the right of the promotion.;