Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) THE appellant was appointed as ad hoc lecturer in Sanatan Dharnr Intermedial e College, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as the college) by the Committee of Management by appointment letter dated 18th January, 1991. Suresh Pal, respondent no. 3, filed a writ petition in this Court and the learned Single Judge found that he was entitled to be promoted as lecturer1 and therefore quashed the appointment of the appellant to the post of lecturer in Economics and directed that respondent no. 3 be considered for appointment as a lecturer in Economics.
(2.) SURESH Pal, respondent no. 3, was appointed as Assistant Teacher in L.T. grade in the college on 6th September, 1974. He was later on confirmed, on the said post. One Sri N. C. Mittal was working as permanent lecturer in Economics. He retired on 30th June, 1988 and a vacancy to the post of lecturer in Economies occurred. The Committee of Management, respondent no. 2, intimated the vacancy of the post of lecturer in Economics to the Higher Education Service Commission through District Inspector of Schools and further decided to make ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment. It advertised the post on 2lst January, 1989. The petitioner made representation to the Committee of Management that he was entitled to be promoted to the post of lecturer in Economics as he was duly qualified for the said post. The Committee of Management, however, proceeded to make appointment through direct recruitment. The appellant was selected for appointment to the post of lecturer in Economics and the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar, respondent no. 1, gave approval for the said appointment and in pursuance of his approval an appointment letter was issued to the appellant on 28th January, 1991. Respondent no. 3 claimed that he was entitled to be promoted to the post of lecturer in Economics but as he was not promoted to the said post he filed a writ petition in this Court and the learned Single Judge took the view, that as respondent no. 3 was qualified and eligible for promotion, the appointment of the appellant by direct recruitment was illegal. We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashok Bhusan learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent no. 3 was given pay scale of lecturer on 24th January 1991 with effect from 1-1-1986 by the District Inspector of Schools in pursuance of the G.O. dated 28th February 1990 issued by the Government. After he was granted lecturer's pay scale, he should be treated in lecturer's grade and he could not have been promoted to the post of lecturer. It is only a teacher in L.T. grade who could be promoted to lecturer's grade. He placed reliance upon Para 4 (2) of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 which reads as under :- "Every vacancy in the post of a teacher in lecturer's grade may be filed by promotion by the seniormost teacher of the institution in the trained graduate (L.T.) grade."
(3.) IT was contended that various provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982) and the Removal of Difficulties Orders framed under the provisions of the said Act, contemplate three grades, namely, C.T. grade, L.T. grade and lecturer's grade. Regulation 6 (1) of Chapter II of the Regulations of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 contemplates L.T. grade and C.T. grade and similarly Rule 9 of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 also provides for the post of L.T. and C.T. grades. The word used is "grade". The Government issued an order dated 28th February 1990 which provided that those teachers who were working in L.T. grade and were imparting education to students of 11 and 12 classes continuously for ten years shall be placed in lecturer's pay scale with effect from the date of completion of ten years. Respondent no. 3 in pursuance of the said Government Order was given lecturer's pay scale on 24th January 1991 with effect from 1-1-1986. As he was given lecturer's pay scale with effect from 1-1-1986 he should be treated in lecturer's grade and he cannot claim promotion to the post of lecturer. The grade should be taken as equivalent to pay scale inasmuch as it is pay scale which makes the difference in grades. This submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, if accepted, would result in anomalous positition. A teacher may be given lecturer's pay scale even though there is no vacancy to the post of lecturer. The grant of lecturer's pay scale is not corelated with the filling of vacancy , in a particular post. In a college where teachers are appointed in L.T. grade and they are given lecturer's pay scale, then in that situation there would not occur any vacancy to the post of lecturer and on the other hand the post may not exist but the teachers are given lecturer's pay scale. The word "grade" has different connotation in the context of a particular Statute.;