Honble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri R.K.Ojha on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Surendra Kumar Singh, on behalf of respondent No. 6.

2. Learned Counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition be disposed of finally without calling for the counter-affidavit.

2-A. This petition is directed against the recommendation of Regional Selection Committee as per the letter of Regional Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Dehat dated 4-8-2006 as also against the consequential order dated 10-8-2006 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat according promotion to Vinod Kumar Misra, respondent No. 4 under Rule 14(5) of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998 against the vacancy available on the post of Lecturer (Civics).

FACTS :

3. Shri Ram Swaroop Gramodaya Intermediate College, Pukhraya district Kanpur Nagar is an Intermediate college recognized as such under the Intermediate Act, 1921.

4. Sri Madan Lal Mishra, petitioner was appointed as CT Grade teacher in the institution on 21.2.1986, he was absorbed in L.T. grade with effect from 6.4.1991 with reference to Government order dated 19-2-1991. The District Inspector of Schools modified the date of absorption of the petitioner as LT Grade teacher as 23-2-1991 and further provided grant of selection grade with effect from 23-10-1991 with reference to Government Order dated 20-12-2001.

5. Respondent No. 4 Vinod Kumar Mishra is said to have been appointed on ad hoc basis against the vacancy caused due to grant of ad hoc promotion to Luxmi Narain in LT Grade for the period 25-11-1986 to 30-6-1987. However, he is said to have been regularized with effect from 6-4-1991 as LT Grade teacher.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is senior in age and the date of regularization/absorption in LT Grade of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 is one and the same, petitioner is entitled to be treated as senior. Therefore, promotion granted in favour of respondent No. 4 as lecturer Civics under the impugned order dated 4-8-2006 in supersession of the petitioner is legally not justified.

7. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 Sri Ashok Khare, senior advocate, submits that the petitioner was appointed as CT Grade teacher on 23-2-1986. His merger in LT Grade on 19-2-1991 is only a conferment of payment of salary in LT Grade and cannot be termed as designation as LT Grade teacher. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1994(24) ALR 19. He further points out that on 18-12-1987 State Government declared CT cadre as dying cadre. Teachers who had completed ten years service in the CT Grade were merged in LT Grade. This Government order was in the teeth of Section 16 of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board’s Act, 1982 and, therefore on 20-4-1998 amendments were made by adding Section 33-D to the 1982 Act. Even thereafter it was necessary for the legislature to make necessary amendment in Section 16- of the Act of 1982 so as to include the exception in respect of appointments, referable to Section 33-D in the said section. The purpose was achieved by Amending U.P. Act No. 5 of 2001 which has been enforced with effect from 30-12-2000.

8. Learned Counsel for the respondent points out that the Government order dated 24-5-2000 relied upon by the petitioner, which provided for grant of LT Grade on completing five years of service in CT Grade run contrary to the specific language of Section 33-D and the only manner available to save the Government order dated 24-4-2004 from being struck down as violative of Section 33-D read with Section 16 of the 1982 Act is to read down the same so as to mean that it provides for payment of salary in LT Grade only and not designation as LT Grade teacher. He therefore submits that petitioner can be designated as L.T. Grade teacher only on completing 10 years of service in C.T. Grade i.e. in the year 1996 and not on any date prior to it.