- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioners who are twelve in number, claims to be teacher of Primary Section of U. P. State Cement Cor poration Ltd. Intermediate College, Dalla district Sonebhadra. According to them the College was initially established as Junior section from Class I to Class VIII in the year 1970 and was upgraded as High School on 16-8-1973 and thereafter upto Intermediate level on 25-8-1979. The institution is governed by the provisions of U. P. Inter mediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. Admittedly, it received grant-in- aid and is not covered under U. P. Secondary Education and U. P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. In the above background all these petitioners claimed that each of them in dividually are qualified and eligible for promotion to the next higher grade in the institution in terms of Regulation 7 (2) Chapter II of the Regulations framed under U. P. Intermediate Education Act and that such eligibility accrued before 19th August, 1992, namely, the date since when the said regulation 7 (2) Chapter II stood deleted. Despite such eligibility and entitlement the respondents are not granting promotion to the petitioners, hence the present writ peti tion.
(2.) SRI Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Primary Section being integral part of the High School and Intermediate College, the whole institution is governed by U. P. Inter mediate Education Act and, therefore, the petitioners though having been employed in the Primary Section are eligible and entitled to promotion under Regulation 7 (2) Chap ter II of the Regulations framed under the said Act, because of the reason that such right had accrued prior to deletion of the said Regulation 7 (2 ). In support of his con tention he relies on the decision in the case of Samantika Chatterjee v. Regional In-spectress of Girls Schools. (1990) 1 UPLBEC 239. He also relies on the two unreported judgments viz. Writ Petition No. 25782 of 1995, Vijay Krishna Tripathi v. Dis trict Inspector of Schools, Sonbhadra and others, in support of his contention that U. P. Intermediate Education Act applies to the present institution. He also relies on the decision in the Writ Petition No. 41445 of 1992 Ram Das and another v. The U. P. State Cement Corporation Limited and others, for similar purposes. He also relies on the decision in the case of Brahma Dayalmehta v. Senior Personnel Executive India Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, (1990) 3 UPLBEC 1570; wherein in similar cir cumstances U. P. Intermediate Education Act was held applicable in the institution run by Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. He also relied on the decision in the case otsmt. Aruna Ghosh v. State of U. P. and others (1996)2 LBESR 57 (All) ; to support his contention that since the eligibility had accrued prior to 19-8-1992 the deletion of Regulation 7 (2) with effect from 19-8-1992 does not take away such right accrued before the deletion of the said regulation. In support of his contention that the persons promoted from T. C. grade to C. T Grade would become eligible for promotion from C. T to L. 1. grade after five years. He relied on the decision in the case of Madan Gopal Agarwal and others v. District Inspector of Schools Bijnor and another, 1996 AWC1645, Sri Dilip Gupta, learned counsel ap pearing on behalf of the Cement Corpora tion, on the other hand contends that there are three colonies of employees in the fac tory situated in Sector-A. Scctor-B and Sec-tor-C. In each of such Sectors there are three Primary Schools, known as Primary School Sector-A, Primary School Sector-B and Primary School Sector-C. These three Primary Schools (para 28 of the counter-af fidavit) are being headed by the three dif ferent Head Master (Para 29 of the counter- affidavit ). The District Inspector of Schools, has in its own letter dated 14-2-1991, which is annexure -CA 2 to the counter-affidavit, has pointed out that recognition of the Primary School is having not been given by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, there fore, there not be any question of promo tion of the teachers in the Primary School to Intermediate college and that U. P. Inter mediate Education Act would be applicable to the High School and Intermediate Col leges run by the U. P. State Cement Corpora tion. Therefore, according him the Primary School not integral part of High School and Intermediate College. By supplementary counter- affidavit Sri Dilip Gupta has brought on record that the Cement Cor poration is now a sick industry within the meaning of clause (o) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985 and, there fore, no order can be passed with regard to the present writ petition. Howev, at the time of argument very fairly Sri Gupta con ceded that the said question would not be germane for the present controversy. Opposing the said contention, Sri Padia, contends that from Annexures-9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 of the petition it is apparent that the Primary Section is an integral part of High School and Intermediate College.
(3.) AFTER having heard Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dilip Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, it appears that the question which calls for determination in the present controversy is that whether the Primary Schools run by the Cement Corporation are integral part of High School and Inter mediate College run by the same respon dents, Cement Corporation. If it is held that it is an integral part of High School and Intermediate College and is one and the same institution, in that event in view of decision in the case of Smt. Samantika Chat-terjee, (supra) U. P. Intermediate Education Act would be applicable and the petitioner would be eligible for promotion to the higher grade of High School and Inter mediate College, by reason of the decision in the case of Smt. Aruna Ghosh (supra) on account of eligibility acquired prior to 19-8-1992, the petitioners would be entitled to promotion by reason of eligibility criterion laid down in the case of Madan Gopalagar-wal and others (supra ). This situation is not disputed by either of the counsels. In the above context both the learned counsel for the parties had ad vanced their respective contentions by plac ing reliance on different documents. Sri Padia, drew my attention to Annexures 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 of the petition and An-nexure RA1 and 2 of his rejoinder-affidavit. Whereas Sri Gupta has relied oh Annexure CA1 and 2 to the counter-affidavit respec tively. Sri Padia contends relying on those documents that Primary Sections are in tegral part of the same institution and the institution is one and the same and, there fore, it would be governed, by the Act with which highest portion of the institution is governed. According to him all the schools are managed by one body. Annexure 9 is the letter by the Manager of the institution to the District Social Welfare Officer, request ing him to release students stipened. Annexure-10 to the petition also a letter ad dressed by the Manager of the Institution to the Director of Education seeking grant-in-aid in the Primary School Annexure-12 to the petition is a letter by the Additional Director of Education addressed to the Director of Education, whereby it was pointed out that for application of regula tion for administration of higher secondary school run by the Cement Corporation and Annexure-13 to the writ petition is letter by the Principal of Intermediate college ad dressed to the District Inspector of Schools intimating that the Primary Schools are primary sections of the College. Annexure RA1 and 2 are salary bill of all the teachers combined together.;