- (1.) By way of this intra-Court appeal, the petitioner of Service Single No.7866 of 2005, seeks to question the order dated 01.09.2015 whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition that was preferred on his claim for promotion on the post of Lecturer (English) after holding that the petitioner-appellant was not possessed of the requisite qualification of 5 year's regular service as LT Grade Teacher on the relevant date.
(2.) This appeal is reportedly time barred by 28 days. Having regard to the circumstances, while ignoring the delay, we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant on merits. After having heard the learned counsel and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any reason to consider interference in the order impugned. The factual aspects of the matter are not much in controversy. The petitioner-appellant was appointed on the post of LT Grade Teacher on 09.10.1996 and hence, he completed 5 years of continuous service on 08.10.2001. The case of the appellant had been that upon retirement of one incumbent holding the post of Lecturer (English), this post fell vacant on 30.06.2001. According to the appellant, the Committee of Management of his employer Sri Shankaracharya Inter College Baldirai, Sultanpur, commenced the process of selection for the post of Lecturer (English) on 06.01.2002, and on this date, he alone was eligible for the post in question. The petitioner-appellant has averred that the necessary formalities were not completed by the Management for about 2 years until the District Inspector of Schools directed the Management to submit the documents relating to the post in question by his letter dated 22.01.2003 which was followed by other communications dated 21.02.2004 and 24.06.2004. The petitioner-appellant has further submitted that the Committee of Management was dissolved on 30.07.2004 whereafter, the District Inspector of Schools became the Authorized Controller who took necessary steps and forwarded the document for approval to the Joint Director Education Faizabad Region, Faizabad who, in turn, rejected the proposal for promotion of the petitioner-appellant on the ground that he had not completed 5 years of continuous service on 01.07.2001, the date on which the post of Lecturer (English) fell vacant. With reference to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 ('the Rules'/ 'the Rules of 1998') the petitioner-appellant submitted that as per the Rules and interpretation thereof by the Court, the candidate should be eligible for promotion on the first date of the year of recruitment or commencement of process of recruitment; and, as the process was initiated in this case admittedly in the month of January, 2002, he was clearly possessed of the requisite qualification on the relevant date. The petitioner-appellant also referred to the Larger Bench decision dated 14.05.2015 of this Court in the case of Raeesul Hasan. Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No.1593 (S/S) of 2001 and other connected matters).
(3.) The learned Single Judge found the said Larger Bench decision being not of any help to the petitioner-appellant and, rather the ratio thereof operating against his claim. The learned Single Judge, therefore, proceeded to decline the claim as made by the petitioner-appellant but left it open for consideration if the vacancy in question was referable to promotion quota or was being filled up by way of promotion. The learned Single Judge proceeded to dispose of the writ petition while observing as under:- "On a close scrutiny of the aforesaid Full Bench judgement, it is evident that a candidate in the zone of eligibility is bound to fulfill requisite qualification as on the date 1st July of the recruitment year in which the vacancy is filled up. The selection process in the present case initiated on 6.1.2002 would necessarily require completion of five year's of regular service as on 1.7.2001, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be well-founded on the strength of case law referred by him. On the contrary the proposition laid down by the Full Bench proceeds to his disadvantage. The impugned order thus, stands in consonance with the Full Bench judgement and needs no interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, it is provided that in case the vacancy in question falls in promotional quota or is to be filled in by way of promotion and has not yet been filled in, the candidature of the petitioner for promotion against the said post shall be considered by the respondents strictly in accordance with rules. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly." Seeking to question the order aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in assuming that for the selection process in question, the requirement of completion of 5 years of regular service would be referable to the date 01.07.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant would argue that in view of the Larger Bench Decision of this Court, the year of recruitment would be the year 2004 when the Authorized Controller and the Principal of the College sent the proposal for promotion. The learned counsel has further attempted to argue that as per Section 2 (1) of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 ['the Act of 1982'] the year of recruitment is the period of 12 months commencing from the first day of July of a calendar year and hence in the present case, even if we assume that the process of selection was commenced on 06.01.2002, the year of recruitment would only be a period of 12 years commencing from the first day of July of the calendar year 2002 and by that date, the petitioner-appellant had already completed 5 years service. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-appellant fall short of merit and remain untenable.;