Vineet Saran - (1.) THE petitioner was initially appointed on 1.8.1967 as an Assistant Teacher in Subhash Inter College, Bhatni district Deoria, respondent No. 3. He was confirmed on such post on 1.8.1968. On 30.6.1984, the Principal of the institution retired and consequently the senior-most Lecturer of the institution, namely, Harihar Tiwari was appointed as ad hoc Principal of the institution. As a consequence thereof, a short term vacancy on the post of Lecturer occurred. THE petitioner being the senior-most L.T. grade teacher, was however approved for ad hoc promotion against the short term vacancy on the post of Lecturer in Civics, but was not permitted to join on such post and in the meantime a new Principal was selected by the Commission, who had joined, and pursuant thereto, said Harihar Tiwari was sent back to his original post of Lecturer. However, during this period, on 20.11.1984 a new post of Lecturer in Civics was created and sanctioned by the Director of Education. THE said post was to be filled up by promotion through U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission, respondent No. 1. THE petitioner apprehended that even though the respondent No. 4 Ramesh Tiwari was junior to the petitioner, but because of his influence in the Committee of Management the case of the petitioner for promotion on such substantive post of Lecturer in Civics would be ignored, thus he filed several representations before the respondent authorities in support of his claim for grant of such promotion. Even then, by order dated 7.8.1989 passed by respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 4 Ramesh Tiwari was promoted on the post of Lecturer in Civics created by order dated 20.11.1984 passed by Director of Education. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 7.8.1989, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Lecturer in Civics with effect from October, 1984.
(2.) I have heard Sri V. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri A. K. Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 Commission ; learned standing counsel for respondent No. 2 and Sri R. S. Misra for respondents No. 4 and 5 and have perused the record. During the pendency of this writ petition, the said Harihar Tiwari, Lecturer in Civics had retired and thus another vacancy arose, which was also to be filled up by promotion. However, by order dated 21.1.1991 passed by the District Inspector of School, Deoria, the said promotion was denied to the petitioner on the ground of pendency of this writ petition and was given to the respondent No. 5 Bhupendra Pandey, who was also junior to the petitioner. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there were four Assistant Teachers in Civics in the College of respondent No. 3. The petitioner was the senior-most and the second in seniority was respondent No. 5 Bhupendra Pandey and then the third was Jagar Nath Tiwari, and the junior-most was respondent No. 4 Ramesh Tiwari. It has been submitted that ignoring the claim of the petitioner, the Committee of Management recommended the name of the respondent No. 4, who was the junior-most. Further, without giving any reasons for ignoring the case of the petitioner, who was the senior-most, the promotion of respondent No. 4 has been approved by the Commission vide order dated 7.8.1989. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had throughout apprehended that such favour would be given to the respondent No. 4 because he was the son of a member of the Committee of Management of the institution and for that reason he had given several representations, which had not been considered.
(3.) SRI R. S. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents No. 4 and 5 has, however, submitted that respondent No. 4 had nothing to do with his promotion and it was the Commission which had selected the respondent No. 4 and thus he was promoted in normal course. Sri A. K. Yadav, learned counsel for the Commission has submitted that the promotion of respondent No. 4 was granted after perusal of the record and the recommendations made to the Commission by the Committee of Management and the District Inspector of School. It is pertinent to note that the Commission has not filed any counter-affidavit. Sri Yadav has, however, not been able to justify that why the Commission ignored the claim of the petitioner without recording any reason for doing so, specially when the petitioner was the senior-most and the respondent No. 4 was the junior-most amongst the four Assistant Teachers of Civics working in the College of respondent No. 3.;