- (1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. The order in this writ petition will also dispose of writ Peti tion No. 9144 of 1988 (S. S. Pandey v. D. I. O. S. , Allahabad and another; (2) Writ Petition No. 24268 of 1992 (S. S. Pandey v, U. P Secondary Education Service Commis sion U. P Allahabad and other; (3) Writ Petition No. 1310 of 1989 S. S. Pandey v. Deputy Director of Education, Allahabad Region, Allahabad and Ors. ; (4) Writ Petition No. 2819 of 1989 ; Harizan Awam Pichhada Warg Shoshit Dal, Allahabad v. U. P. Secondary Education Commission, Al lahabad and Ors. ; (5) Writ petition No. 14572 of 1992 (V. P. Shukla v. District In spector of Schools, Allahabad and another) and (6) Writ Petition No. 2520 of 1990 (S. S. Pandey v. U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad and Ors.) as the facts involved in these writ petitions are same.
(2.) THIS writ petition reveals how regularisation process of an employee is thwarted. It also reveals an aspect that how successive writ petitions are filed without making any amendment in the original writ petition, confusing the facts and protracting the journey of the case towards its final end. THIS writ petition also shows how one party wants to play the war of nerves against the other. The petitioner in the original petition prays for issuing of a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 29-10-1983 (Annexure No. 3) passed by the respondents No. 3 and he further prays that the respondent No. 1 and 2 be directed to consider the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Sociology on the basis of promotion in 40% quota in accordance with the provisions of Regulations No. 5 and 6. The petitioner further prays that direction be issued to decide the representation pend ing before the authorities i. e. respondents No. land 3. Brief facts leading to this writ peti tion are as follows. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in L. T. grade by the respondent No. 2, 19-7-1973 and was confirmed on 9-7-1974. The petitioner was placed at No. 3 in the seniority list. He was M. A. in Sociology from Kanpur University which he passed in the year 1973. He was also having qualification of B. Ed. Before 1973 the school was upto High School and after 1973 it was raised upto Intermediate. There were three posts of Lecturership in the School i. e. one in Hindi, the other in Economics and the third in Sanskrit. The appointments were made on the basis of direct recruitment. In the Year 1974 one post of Lecturer in Civics was created and direct recruitment was made. In the year 1975 the post of Lecturer in History was filled up by direct recruitment. On 28-7-1983 the post of teaching in Sociology in Intermediate classes was created in the institution which was sanctioned by Education authorities and the same was to be filled up in accordance with the Regula tion No. 5 of the U. P. Intermediate Educa tion Act, 1921. Regulation 5 is quoted with advantage: "5. (1) Every vacancy in the post of teacher in a recognised institution shall except as other wise provided in clause (2) be filled by direct recruitment. (2) Forty percent of the total number of the sanctioned posts in lecturer's grade or in the L. T. grade shall only be filled by promotion from amongst the teachers working in the institution in the L. T. , and the C. T grades respectively and promotions shall be made subject to avaiability and eligibility of such teachers for promotion. " Regulation 6 of U. P. Interme the Education Act, 1921,deals with the vacan cy and determination of minimum qualification for teaching the subject in which the teacher in the lecturer's grade is required. Sub-clause (3) of Regulation 6 reads as under: "6 (3) Subject to clause (2) where more than one teacher in the L. T. grade are eligible for promotion to the post of lecturer in any subject preference shall be given to the teacher who is the senior most amongst them in service in that grade. "
(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that when the post of the sociology Lec turer was created regularly the petitioner was not considered for appointment and the benefit of ad-hoc appointment was given to respondent No. 5 Shri Sheo Shanker Pandey by the Managing Com mittee by resolution dated 19-10- 1983. THE petitioner further alleges that he was appointed on 9-7-1993 and was con firmed on 9-7-1974 whereas Sheo Shanker Pandey was appointed in August, 1974 and was confirmed in 1975. He further alleges that there are six posts in the institution and according to 40% quota he should have been considered for the appointment by the Management. THE petitioner says that he made various representation regarding by passing him for not appoint ing on the ad-hoc basis and thereafter on regular basis over the preference given to Shri Sheo Shanker Pandey but of no avail. He further alleges that the authorities were hand in glove with the wrong ap pointment of Shri Pandey. He further al leges that the respondent did not notify the vacancy to the Commission for regular appointment as required under Section 18 of U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1982 ). He further alleges that the approval given vide annexure- No. 3 to the writ peti tion regarding appointment of respondent No. 5 is without jurisdiction and has no effect on the right of the petitioner. The respondent No. 5 Shri Sheo Shanker Pandey filed a detailed counter-affidavit justifying his appointment and inter alia pleaded that he is working in the college for more than 10 years and his service have been confirmed. In para No. 5 of the counter affidavit a concept of crea tion of mixed posts of Lecturers has been introduced. It says that Sociology subject was yet to recognised in Intermediate clas ses and the post was to be created so accord ing to time table of the college teaching of 30 periods in a week was required whereas the Lecturer is Sanskrit was teaching 30 periods per week. Additional periods were to be taught by additional lecturer so it was thought to create post of Lecturer in Sanskrit so that teaching can be done in both the subjects and the proposal was sent that the Lecturer so Sociology may be M. A. so that within the sanctioned strength double purpose can be solved i. e. teaching in Sanskrit and Sociology. Copy of the letter dated 2-11-1982 received from the office of District Inspector of Schools, Al lahabad is annexure No. CA-2 to the counter-affidavit on this subject-matter.;