- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. List revised. Shri Surendra Prasad, Advocate appears on be half of the petitioner, to press this peti tion.
(2.) SRI R. C. Shukla, representing Respondent No. 4 and Standing Counsel on behalf of Respondent No. 1 present. Heard learned counsels for the parties. I have perused the petition. Petitioner, who was working as Assistant Teacher in L. T. Grade in a recognised Col lege, as contemplated under the U. P. Inter mediate Education Act, claims appoint ment by promotion as Lecturer (Hindi ). Petitioner claimed that he was not being promoted. Petitioner claimed that he was entitled to and should be considered for appointment by promotion on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) which fell under the promotional quota. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of Respondent No. 1 (District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor), who did not decide his representation.
(3.) IT is not disputed at the Bar that the petitioner has already attained age of superannuation about a year in the past. IT is true that representations of the petitioner dated 19-6-1991 (Annexure 5), 20-6- 1991 (Annexure 6) and 22-6-1991 (Annexure 7), referred to in Paragraph Nos. 12,13 and 17 of the writ petition, were not decided by the concerned educational authorities. Even if the petitioner has attained age of superannuation, he was entitled for decision of his representations. In case it is found by District Inspector of Schools that petitioner was entitled to be appointed on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) by promotion the same will drastically change his status and make him entitled to higher emolu ments as well as better post-retiral benefits. The fact that petitioner has at tained age of superannuation cannot be a relevant circumstance to deny adjudication of his claim.;