R.R.K.Trivedi - (1.) IN this writ petition, I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and Shri A. K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner has informed that he attempted to serve a copy of this writ petition on the counsel for respondent no. 5. However, he refused to accept the same. An endorsement to this effect has been made in the writ petition. The facts giving rise to this petition are that a vacancy for a post of lecturer in subject Education in institution Lala Ramlal Agarwal Inter College, Sirsa, district Allahabad arose on 1-7-1986 on account of retirement of the permanent lecturer on the post on 30-6-1985. Petitioner's case is that he passed his M.Ed. Examination in 1985-86 by Correspondance Course from Himanchal Pradesh University. Petitioner has not given the specific date on which he passed the M.Ed. Examination. He has- vaguely asserted academic session 85-86. It has been further contended that petitioner filed application before the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad on 10-8-1987 and an application was also sent to Chairman of the Commission on 20-8-1987 and identical prayer was made before the Deputy Director of Education, IVth Region, Allahabad on 23-8-1992. However, name of the petitioner has not, been considered and the Commission, respondent no. 1, by its letter dated 18-11-1992, Annexure IV to the writ petition, recommended name, of respondent no. 5 for being appointed as Lecturer in subject Education. The fact that the petitioner is senior is not disputed between the parties. The only question in dispute is as to whether the petitioner was legally qualified for the post of lecturer in subject Education on the date of the vacancy. From the facts already mentioned above, it is clear that the vacancy arose before 1-7-1985 and admittedly petitioner had not passed the M.Ed. Examination on or before that date, and he was not qualified. However, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on a case Yogendra Nath Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, (1991) 1 UP LB EC 484, and it has been submitted that the date relevant for considering the qualification is the date on which the management decides to make ad-hoc appointment and not the date of vacancy and thus though petitioner acquired the requisite qualification after the date of vacancy, his claim should also have been forwarded to the Commission for being considered for promotion along with the name of respondent no. 5, and the committee of management and the respondent no 1 having failed to do so, the impugned order dated 18-11-1992, annexure IV to the writ petition, cannot be sustained.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondents, on the other hand, has relied on a Division Bench case of Harish Chand Mishra v. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, 1986 UP LB EC 169 and has submitted that the candidate must possess the minimum qualification prescribed under law on the date of vacancy. LEARNED counsel has also referred to the Government Order dated 3-7-1984 in which at Serial No. 10 it has been stated that names of only those teachers who possess the requisite qualification on the date of vacancy should be forwarded for consideration of promotion to the Commission. It has been further submitted that as the petitioner admittedly lacked the qualification on the date of vacancy, his name was rightly not forwarded to the Commission for consideration. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for parties and in my opinion the claim of the petitioner is not justified. The case reported in (1991) (1) UP LB EC 484 and also reported in 1991 AWC 562, was relied on by a learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Shashi Bhushan Sharma v. Committee of Management Sanatan Dharam Inter College, Sadar Meerut, 1992 AWC 137. This subsequent case has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Prem Balika Rai v. R.I.G.S. Pancham Mandal, Varanasi, 1993 AWC 872 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been overruled. In view of this latest Division Bench case it cannot be said that the case relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner still holds good. The view of this Court has been consistent on this question that under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and the Regulations framed thereunder and under the provisions of U. P. Act No. V of 1982 and the Rules framed thereunder, a candidate aspiring for appointment on a post must possess the qualification on the date of vacancy. In my opinion, since the petitioner admittedly did not possess the requisite qualification on the date of vacancy, he has no case and this petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;