C.K.PRASAD,A.P.SAHI,J. - (1.) RESPONDENT No. 5 appellant, aggrieved by order dated 29.6.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4380 of 2007, has preferred this special appeal under Rule 5, Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules.
(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 5, is a Class-IV employee of Moti Lal Nehru Smarak Inter College (hereinafter referred to as 'the College'), which receives grant-in-aid. On 28.2.2003, a vacancy of Clerk in the College occurred due to the retirement of the incumbent. There are three posts of Clerks including the post of Head Clerk out of which two are occupied by the members of the General category. Regulation 2 of Chapter III of the Regulations made in exercise of the power under Section 16-G of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, inter alia, provides that 50% of the sanctioned posts of Head Clerk and Clerk shall be filled up by promotion from Class IV employees. Undisputedly, respondent No. 5 does not belong to the reserved category. As no candidate of the Scheduled Caste was available, the District Inspector of Schools by order dated 15.4.2005 took a decision to fill up the post by direct recruitment from amongst the members of the Scheduled Caste and in the light of the aforesaid, an advertisement was published in the Newspaper. The appellant, herein, who happens to be a member of the Scheduled Caste, offered his candidature and was selected for the appointment. After the said selection, matter is under consideration of the Regional Committee.
(3.) WRIT Petitioner-respondent No. 5 herein, filed a writ application, inter alia, praying for a direction for his promotion to the post of Clerk. Said writ application was registered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69585 of 2005, Vinod Kumar Singh v. District Inspector of Schools and others, and by order dated 9.11.2006, this writ application was disposed of with a direction to consider his claim. In the light of the aforesaid order, the District Inspector of Schools, considered his claim and by order dated 4.12.2006, rejected his representation. He challenged the aforesaid order in the writ application, which has given rise to the present appeal.;