- (1.) S. R. Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The dispute pertains to appointment in the post of Lecturer (Civics) which fell vacant due to death of permanent incumbent Sri Gyanendra Pratapon 11-6-1993 The Committee of Management passed resolution in its meeting held on 23-1-1994 giving ad hoc promotion to respondent Pradeep Kumar Sachan The District Inspector of Schools approved of the said resolution vide his letter dated 10-3-1995.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner being the senior most teacher in L. T. Grade was entitled to be given ad hoc pro motion and to Committee of Management was not justified in giving ad hoc promotion to the respondent Pradeep Kumar Sachan. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner ; the vacancy for the purposes of ad hoc appointment/promotion would be deemed to have occurred when the Com mittee of Management took up the matter for appointment/promotion after expiration of 60 days' period stipulated in Section 18 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission, 1982. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Division Bench decisions in Hans Raj Singh v. U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Allahabad (1990) 2 UPLBEC 1127 and Nand Kishore v. U. P. Secondary Education Ser vices Commission, (1993) 1 UPLBBC 201. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner were reasonably and plausibly acceptable, particularly in view of the Division Bench decisions aforestated. But the Legislature by means of the Notification dated 16-7-1992 published in U. P. Gazette Part I Ka dated 4-9-1993 has inserted Rule 9-B in the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983. Rule 9-B of the Rules provider in no uncertain language that Management shall, in respect of the vacancies to be filled by promotion, consider cases of such teachers who are working in the trained graduate (L. T. Grade) or certificate of teaching (C. T. Grade) and possessed of quali fication proscribed under the U, P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or Regulations made thereunder and have put at least five years continuous service as such on the date oj occurrence of vacancy for promotion to the post of Lecturer or trained graduate (LT. Grade), as the case may be, on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit even their having not applied for the same. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the peti tioner were rendered at a time when rule 9-B was not on the Statute Book, fa the face of Rule 9-B it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that for purposes of ad hoc promotion relevant date for acquisition of eligibility is the date on which the Committee of Management decides to make appointment. The Division Bench decisions referred to above were concerned with the cases of appointment/promotion made prior to insertion of Rule 9-B in the Rules. The petitioner was admittedly not possessed of M. A. Degree in Civics on the date of occurrence of the vacancy that is to say on 11-6-1993 The view taken by the Committee of Management and the District Inspector of Schools in the matter does not suffer from any manifest error of law warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) THE petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed .;