B.N.Sapru, J. - (1.) SMT . Malti Misra was appointed as an Assistant Inspectress of Girls Schools on 21.1.1963 and was confirmed on 1.4.1969 on that post. The respondent No. 3 was appointed as Assistant. Inspectress of Girls Schools on 28.9.1964 and confirmed as such on 1.4.1969, while the respondent No. 4, Smt. Kusumlata Gupta was appointed as Assistant Inspectress of Girls Schools on 17.8.1968 and was confirmed on 1.4.1975. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 admittedly belong to backward class. The post of Assistant Inspectress of Girls Schools is a post covered by the Subordinate Educational (Gazetted - -Inspection Branch) Service Rules, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). These Rules have been made by the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and they regulate the recruitment to the post and conditions of services of the persons appointed to the Subordinate Educational (Gazetted Inspection Branch). Rule 7 of the Rules provides for representation of Schedule Castes. It runs as follows: - - 7. Representation of Schedule Castes. - -Reservation for Schedule Castes in direct recruitment shall be in accordance with the orders for reservation in force at the time of recruitment. (A copy of the orders in force at the time of promulgation of these rules will be found in Appendix 'B' to these rules.)
(2.) THEREAFTER Part VI of the Rules deals with the procedure for recruitment by promotion. Rule 18(1) of the Rules provides that - - For purposes of recruitment by promotion under rule 5 to the posts of Deputy Inspector and Deputy Inspectress, a selection shall be made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit from amongst confirmed Sub -Deputy Inspectors and Assistant Inspectress who have completed at least ten years' service in their respective posts. The case of the petitioner is that she had become eligible for promotion but she was not considered because in view of certain executive instructions issued by the Government dealing with the reservation for appointment to be made by promotion, the respondents No. 3 and 4 who were juniors, were promoted.
(3.) IN the counter -affidavit filed by Sri Kailash Nath Jaiswal on behalf of the Director of Education, it has been stated that the petitioner was not considered for promotion as the petitioner was junior to Smt. Nandini Devi and Smt. Prabha Bhatnagar. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner's promotion case will be considered in the future vacancies according to the petitioner's seniority and suitability. The counter affidavit has gone to say that: - - The incumbent belonging to the backward classes Smt. Urmila Katiyar and Smt. Kusumlata Gupta have been promoted according to the reservation made for the promotion to the backward class by the Government Order dated 13.1.1978 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition). Thus it is wrong to say that the promotion case of the petitioner has been overlooked.;