D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner alleges that a vacancy in the post of Lecturer had occurred on 30.6.1985. The petitioner had appeared in the M.A. examination in Philosophy in March, 1985, but the result was declared on 30.9.1985. But, however, ignoring the claim of the petitioner, despite being senior to respondent No. 5, the Committee of Management had promoted respondent No. 5 who acquired the same qualification earlier than 30.6.1985.
(2.) Mr. Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner had assailed the promotion granted to the respondent No. 5 on the ground that the petitioner having appeared in the M.A. examination in March, 1985. and he was declared successful in September, 1985. the petitioner should be deemed to have qualified before 30.6.1985 inasmuch as the declaration of result relates back when he had completed the" examination, therefore, the petitioner's candidature cannot be ignored on account of any disqualification and he being senior to respondent No. 5 by reason of the provisions contained in Rule 9 of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1983, he should have been given the promotion to the post of Lecturer instead of respondent No. 5. He also relied on a decision of this Court rendered by a Division Bench in Writ Petition No, nil of 1988. Sangam Lal Pandey v. State of U. P. and others, decided on 8.3.1990, a copy where is marked as Annexure-RA-1 to the rejoinder-affidavit.
(3.) Mr. R. S. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. on the other hand, contends that Rule 9 of 1983 Rules prescribes that the question is to be decided on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. Appearance in examination does not determine the qualification. Unless a person is declared successful in the examination, he cannot be said to have acquired the qualification and the declaration of result cannot lead back. A person can be said to have acquired the qualification when the result is declared and not before. He further contends that decision in the case of Sangam Lal Pandey (supra), cited by Mr. Vivek Mishra is no manner a good law in view of the decision in the case of Dr. Raman Kumar Pandey v. Sukhram Pal Singh Sehrawat and others, 1995 (1) ESC 74, wherein this Court had held that a person is deemed to be qualified only on the declaration of the result.;