D. S. Sinha, J. - (1.) THIS petition was dismissed on 12th October, 1988 for the reasons to be delivered later. Here are the reasons.
(2.) ON 26th December, 1986, a vacancy on the post of L. T. Grade Drawing Teacher in Raja Kamlakar Inter College, Shankergarh, district Allahabad, arose. The vacancy was to be filled by promotion under 40% quota. It is averred that the Committee of Management of the College by means of a communication dated 8th October, 1987, addressed to the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, a copy whereof is annexure 3 to the petition, recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion to the aforesaid post and requested. the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad to forward the name of the petitioner to U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission, hereinafter called the Commission, for selection. It appears that the name of Sri Madhav Sharan Tripathi, the respondent no. 1, who was senior to petitioner, was not forwarded. He, therefore, made a representation to the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad on 10th October, 1987. A copy of this representation is to be found on record as annexure 4 to the petition. As a result of this representation the Committee of Management was directed to forward the service record of the respondent no. 1 also to the Commission. The Commission selected the respondent no. 1. The Secretary of the Commission, by means of his communication dated nil, annexure 5 to the petition, informed the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad about the selection of the respondent no. 1. It is this communication which is impugned in the instant writ petition. The case of the petitioner, as it appears from the assertions made in the petition and submissions made on his behalf, is that he was the only teacher qualified to be promoted to the post in question and Madhav Sharan Tripathi, the respondent no. 1, was not qualified to be promoted inasmuch as he had never worked in C. T. Grade as Drawing Teacher. Three counter affidavits have been filed. The Committee of Management, the respondent no. 2, has supported the case of the petitioner.
(3.) THE stand taken by Madhav Sharan Tripathi, respondent no. 1, is that he was fully qualified to be promoted as L. T. Grade Drawing Teacher. His further case is that for being qualified to be promoted to the post of Drawing Teacher in L. T. Grade, there is no requirement for being Drawing Teacher in C. T. Grade. THE respondent no. 1 also contends that the petitioner himself was not qualified for being considered for promotion to the L. T. Grade inasmuch as he, being untrained, was not a teacher in C. T. Grade in the eye of law. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission the stand is that it considered the candidature of teachers of the C. T. Grade of the institution eligible for promotion and found the respondent no. 1 to be the senior most amongst them possessing all the qualifications prescribed for promotion to L. T. Grade teacher. According to Commission respondent no. 1 was most suitable for promotion. It, therefore, approved the promotion of the respondent no. 1 as Drawing Teacher in the L. T. Grade. The Commission has reiterated that the promotion of the respondent no. 1 was strictly in accordance with the rule 9 of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules.;