A person is not eligible for promotion to a post unless he/she has the requisite qualification.

( 1 ) THE petitioner claims that he was appointed on 4. 5. 1967 as a Stenographer in Allahabad agricultural Institute, Naini, Allahabad. He alleges that respondent No. 3 was appointed in the society on 10. 12. 1973. It is also alleged that the petitioner was born on 1. 7. 1936 whereas respondent No. 3 was born on 4. 2. 1943. Ignoring the claim of the petitioner for being promoted to the post of Office Superintendent on account of resultant vacancy due to retirement of Ms. Namita Khannavis from the post of Office Superintendent, the respondent No. 3 was adjusted in the said vacancy by an order dated 10. 12. 1991. This order has since been challenged by the petitioner.

( 2 ) SHRI M. A. Qadeer, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that society and the institute are two different organisations. The respondent No. 3 is an employee of the society and the salary of respondent No. 3 is being paid by the society. Whereas the petitioner is an employee of the institute and his salary is being paid under the Payment of Salaries Act. Then again the petitioner being senior in service, he was eligible for being promoted and his case could not have been ignored by adjusting the respondent No. 3 in the said post. According to him, the post being a promotional post and there being eligible candidate available, the same should have been filled up by promotion after considering the case of the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner is eligible and qualified for promotion. He also contends further that even if respondent No. 3 appears to be eligible and qualified, still then by virtue of seniority, the petitioner is entitled for the said promotion unless he is declared unfit. He relies on the provisions of the First Statute of the Allahabad University as well as Section 60a of the State Universities Act in support of his contention.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 2, the Allahabad Agricultural Institute, is represented by Shri J. Nagar. He contends that the respondent No. 3 is more qualified and, therefore, he was given the appointment on the basis that both were equal in rank on the question of seniority since both of them were absorbed under the Payment of Salaries Act on one and the same date.

( 4 ) MR. K. R. Singh, learned counsel for the University on the other hand contends that the petitioner is not eligible for being considered for promotion on account of absence of eligibility and qualification inasmuch as according to him, in order to get promotion to the post of Office superintendent one must possess 10 years as Head Clerk which is lacking in the case of the petitioner. He also supports the contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 2 Shri J. Nagar to the extent that respondent No. 3 is eligible and qualified and therefore, there was no infirmity in the appointment.

( 5 ) SHRI Lalji Sinha, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 adopts the submission made by Shri J. Nagar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. However, he contends that under the Statute a stenographer is not eligible for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent. He refers to statute 28. 01 of the First Statute of the Allahabad University in support of his contention.

( 6 ) MR. Qadeer, learned counsel for the petitioner disputes that respondent No. 3 was absorbed under the Payment of Salaries Act on the same date or that respondent No. 3 was more qualified and that petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification.

( 7 ) I have heard all the learned counsel at length.

( 8 ) MR. Qadeer refers to the provisions of Statute 30. 01 of the First Statute of the University to point out that Agricultural Institute, Naini, Allahabad, is an Associated College of the Allahabad university and as such is governed by the provisions of the First Statute whereas respondent No. 3 being an employee of the society which runs the institute is a distinct and separate organisation which cannot be brought within purview of Associated Colleges as provided in Chapte