- (1.) Heard Sri J.N. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Som Kartik for the respondent no. 4.
(2.) This appeal questions the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.01.2017 whereby the claim of promotion of the respondent no. 4-petitioner has been directed to be considered by the Regional Level Committee.
(3.) The ground of challenge is that the respondent no. 4- petitioner was not entitled for regularization, he was not eligible to seek even continuance in service and he had been regularized without considering the impact of the dismissal of writ petition No. 1217 of 1989 on 26th of August, 2004. The contention is that in the absence of any valid status as a teacher in the institution, any consequential claim of the respondent no. 4 was not founded in law and, as such, any claim of consideration of promotion could not be considered as the respondent no. 4-petitioner did not have any such right of consideration. Learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge, has therefore, erred in coming to the conclusion that the order of the Regional Level Committee dated 02.01.2017 deserves to be quashed.;