- (1.) R. B. Mehrotra, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The short question involved for consideration in the present writ petition is as to whether the post of the clerk which fall vacant in Rashtriya Intermediate College, Chiraiyakot, district Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as the Institution) is to be filled under the Rules by promotion or by direct recruitment. An ancillary question which also arise for consideration in the present petition is whether the appointment of respondent No. 5 was made in violation of the Provisions of Regulation-4 read with Regulation 10 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Educa tion Act. The Committee of Management of the College has made appoint ment of respondent No. 5 on 18th November, 1986.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order the petitioner who was working as Class IV employee in the institution made a representation against the said appointment to the District Inspector of Schools. Azamgarh, who sought clarification in the matter from the Director of Education. The Director of Education vide his letter dated 17th March, 1987, wrote back to the District Inspector of Schools "that the provisions for promotion of the clerks and the peons are clearly provided in Chapter III; Regulation-2 of the aforesaid Regulations and you take action according to the aforesaid Provisions. " In response thereof the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh, rejected the petitioner's claim for promotion and held that since there are four posts in the clerical staff of the college consisting of one head clerk and 3 clerks under Regulation-2 of Chapter III of the Regulations only 50% posts are to be requir ed to be filled by promotion from the clerks and peons. The quota of promotion for the clerical staff has already filled by promotion, by promoting one clerk to the posts of head clerk and one peon to the post of the clerk. The post was required to be filled by direct recruitment and the management has rightly filled the aforesaid posts by direct recruitment. The aforesaid order of the District Inspector of Schools has been challenged in the present writ petition. The relevant rules which call for consideration in the present matter is in Hindi, the same is being reproduced for exact appreciation of the language of the rule and English translation of the same in also being given hereunder: English version of relevant portion of the aforesaid Rule is as under : "50% of the sanctioned posts in category of the Head Clerk and the Clerk shall be filled by promotion from clerks and IVth class em ployee working in the institution. If the employee possessed the necessary qualification and has worked for five years continuously on substantive service and the service record is good. The promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit. " Note.- For counting the 50% posts the portion falling less than half will be left out and the portion of half or above half will be considered to be one. If a bare reading of the aforesaid version makes it clear that the 50% of the total number of posts including that of the head clerks or clerks are requir ed to be filled by promotion. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the post of the head clerk has to be bifurcated from the post of the clerk for calculating the promotion quota of the IVth the Class employee on the posts of the clerk. This argument is belied by the very language of the Rule and virtually leads to a situation that the post of the head clerk will always be filled by promotion. Had this been and intention of the Rule making authority a clear provision would have been made that the post of the head clerk shall be filled only by promotion. Accordingly I am of the view that the order of the District Inspector of Schools holding three since half of the post in the institution in the category of head dark and clerks were already filled by promotion, the third post was required to be filled by direct recruitment is in accordance with the aforesaid Regulations. There is no illegality in the aforesaid order. The other ground which has been urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No. 5 was related to the Secretary of the College. The District Inspector of Schools in his order has categorically stated that the respondent No. 5 was not in any way related to any of the office bearers of the Committee of Management of the College, Besides that a categorical statement in this connection has been made in the counter affidavit filed by Sri Sita Ram Shukla, the Principal of the College and that Sri Rajendra Upadhyay had submitted his resignation from the post of the Secretary, from the Committee of Management of the institution which was accepted on 9th November, 1986. In view of these facts it is clear that on the date the appointment of respondent No. 5 was made, he was not related to any office bearers or principal of the Committee of Management. The second contention has also no force. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed. .;