Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner Dinesh Chandra Mishra was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade on an ad hoc basis on 9.7.1993. It transpires, that a Lecturer in Mathematics retired on 30.6.2003 and consequently, a vacancy arose on 1.7.2003. The petitioner, applied for a promotion as a Lecturer. Since his case was not being considered, he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21396 of 2003, which was disposed of, by a judgment dated 25.5.2003, directing the authorities to decide his representation with regard to his promotion on the post of Lecturer. The said claim was rejected by an order dated 29.8.2003 on the ground that his services were not regularised and that he had not completed five years of continuous service on the date of the occurrence of the vacancy. Subsequently, by an order of the Director of Education, as communicated by the letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 3.2.2004, the services of the petitioner were regularised with effect from 20.4.1998. By another order dated 26.10.2004, the District Inspector of Schools directed the Committee of Management to forward the papers with regard to the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer. Inspite of this direction, no action was taken by the Committee of Management. Consequently, the present writ petition was filed praying that the Committee of Management be directed to send the requisite papers to the authorities for the promotion of the petitioner as a Lecturer in Mathematics and further prayed that the respondents be directed to promote the petitioner as a Lecturer in Mathematics w.e.f. 30.6.2003.

2. The Committee of Management has filed a counter affidavit contending that the service of the petitioner was not regularised on the date of the occurrence of vacancy, i.e., on 1.7.2003 and that, the vacancy was notified under Rule 11 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 to be filled up by way of direct recruitment. Consequently, the post in question was required to be filled up by way of direct recruitment.

3. The District Inspector of Schools has also filed a counter affidavit contending that the petitioner was earlier not eligible for the promotion and that his claim for promotion was earlier rejected by an order dated 29.8.2003, but now after his regularisation the petitioner is eligible for the promotion to the post of Lecturer. However, the respondents are facing difficulty in view of the fact that the requisition for filling up the vacancy by direct recruitment had already been sent to the Selection Board.

4. In the connected Writ Petition No. 5399 of 2006, Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, the petitioner Reskesh Kumar contended that he is a selected candidate and was recommended for an appointment as a Lecturer in Mathematics in Heera Lal Khanna Inter College, Kanpur, but was refused the appointment on the post on account of the fact that an interim order was obtained in a petition filed by Dinesh Chandra Mishra. The petitioner Rakesh Kumar has therefore, filed the present writ petition praying that the Selection Board be directed to pass a fresh order allocating another institution for his appointment on the post of a Lecturer in Mathematics.

5. Heard Sri Amit Saxena, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K. Tewari, the learned Counsel for the Committee of Management, Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Sri A.K. Yadav, the learned Counsel appearing for the Selection Board and Sri Neeraj Tiwari, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the connected writ petitions.

6. The question to be considered in the present case is, whether the petitioner Dinesh Chandra Mishra was eligible for promotion upon the occurrence of the vacancy on 1.7.2003. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to consider a few provisions of the Act and the Rules. Section 12 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 provides the procedure of s