Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade in the year 1985. Since this C.T. Grade was declared a dying cadre, it is alleged, that the petitioner was upgraded in L.T. Grade. On 30.6.1997, the Principal of the institution retired and the seniormost teacher, one Shesh Mani Tripathi, a Lecturer in History, was appointed as an adhoc principal in the institution. Consequently, the post of lecturer in History fell vacant. It is alleged that the Committee of Management passed a resolution dated 8.10.1997, to promote the petitioner, as a lecturer on an adhoc basis. The papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for its approval. It is alleged that one Dharam Raj Yadav raised an objection with regard to the promotion of the petitioner. The District Inspector of Schools, by an order dated 22.12.1998, accorded approval for the promotion of the petitioner and rejected the claim of Dharam Raj Yadav. It is alleged that Dharam Raj Yadav filed an appeal before the Joint Director, which was allowed by an order dated 29.4.1999. The petitioner filed a writ petition No. 30222 of 1999.

2. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, it transpires that Sri Paresh Kumar Gupta was recommended as a Lecturer in History by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Board, pursuant to which, the District Inspector of Schools, by a letter dated 25.1.2005, directed the Management to issue an appointment letter to Sri Paresh Kumar Gupta. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the recommendation of the District Inspector of Schools, has filed Writ Petition No. 8056 of 2005.

3. The petitioner’s contention is that there are seven posts of Lecturer in the institution. 50% of the posts are required to be filled up by way of promotion, as contemplated under Regulation 5 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act read with Rule 10(b) of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998. Consequently, four posts are required to be filled by way of promotion, out of which, one post had been filled up by way of promotion and that the remaining three posts are still vacant. The petitioner contends that he is eligible for being promoted as a lecturer in History under the relevant rules, and that the action of the respondents in not promoting him was wholly illegal.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the recommendation made by the District Inspector of Schools, recommending the name of Paresh Kumar Gupta, as a Lecturer in History was wholly illegal, inasmuch as, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted under the promotion quota. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon two documents dated 31.5.2005 issued by the Committee of Management, which indicated that three posts of Lecturer was required to be filled up by way of promotion. In paragraph 13 and 18 of the Writ Petition No. 8056 of 2005, it is alleged that out of seven posts, three posts under the promotion quota are still available. The Committee of Management in their counter affidavit has denied this fact and submitted that the documents dated 31.5.2004 is a forged and fabricated document. The District Inspector of Schools in his counter affidavit, has admitted the contents of paragraph 13 and 18 of the writ petition including the document dated 31.5.2004. In view of the aforesaid, there is conflicting stand between the respondents with regard to the question of the number of posts which are required to be filled up by way of promotion.

5. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the recommendation made by the District Inspector of Schools for giving an appointment to Paresh Kumar Gupta was illegal, inasmuch as, the vacancy on the post of lecturer in history was never advertised as per Rule 12 of the Rules of 1998. Since the post was not advertised, the Selection Board could not recommend the name of Sri Paresh