Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri B.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vashistha Tiwari for respondents No. 3 and 5, Sri A.K. Yadav for respondent No. 6 and learned Standing Counsel.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order of appointment of respondent No. 5 on the post of Lecturer (Hindi). A mandamus has also been sought commanding respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 to promote the petitioner on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) with effect from 1st July, 1997.

3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; Inter College Dandia Mai is a recognised institution under the provisions of the UP. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. After enforcement of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 the institution came under the purview of the said 1982 Act. The petitioner was appointed as L.T. Grade Teacher with effect from 8th July, 1987. One Satpal Singh Yadav who was working as Lecturer (Hindi) retired on 30th June, 1996 causing a substantive vacancy on the post of Lecturer (Hindi). Petitioner’s case in the writ petition is that the Committee of Management vide letter dated 7th February, 1996 allegedly sent a requisition for the post of Lecturer (Hindi). The petitioner’s case further is that he was permitted to perform the duties of Lecturer (Hindi) after retirement of Satpal Singh Yadav. His further case is that Satpal Singh Yadav being a lecturer appointed by promotion, the post of Lecturer (Hindi), which fell vacant due to his retirement, was to be filled up by promotion of L.T. Grade Teacher. The U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission vide its letter dated 3rd January, 1998 sent a panel of selected candidate, i.e., the name of respondent No. 5 for appointment as Lecturer (Hindi). In pursuance of the selection made by the Commission of respondent No. 5, the Committee of Management issued appointment letter and respondent No. 5 submitted his joining on 7th February, 1998. The petitioner after selection of respondent No. 5 by the Commission on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) filed this writ petition praying for quashing the selection of respondent No. 5.

4. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanges between the parties. The petitioner’s case in the writ petition is that petitioner having worked as L.T. Grade Teacher and having completed five years of service, he was entitled for promotion on the post of Lecturer (Hindi). The petitioner made requests for promotion on the post of Lecturer (Hindi). Petitioner’s case further is that Satpal Singh Yadav having been promoted as Lecturer (Hindi), after his retirement the post will fall under promotion quota. Further the case of the petitioner is that requisition alleged to be sent by the Committee of Management for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) was never sent and the selection of respondent No. 5 is illegal. The Committee of Management, District Inspector of Schools as well as the selected candidate have filed their counter-affidavits. The case of the respondents in the counter-affidavit is that the post of Lecturer (Hindi) did not fall within the promotion quota there being four posts sanctioned and three posts, namely, Lecturer (Economics), Lecturer (Civics) and Lecturer (Hindi) having been filled through promotion. The case of the respondents is that after the post of Lecturer (Hindi) fell vacant, two posts having already been filed through promotion, the post in question was to be filled up by direct recruitment for which requisition was sent by the Management and Commission has rightly made selection of respondent No. 1. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was not qualified on the day of occurrence of vacancy since he was simply B.A., B.T.C. on that date. It has further been pleaded that requisition for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) was sent on 7th February, 1996 and thereafter selection has been made.

5. Sri B.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, i