Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri Gautam Baghel, Advocate for respondent No. 6.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11/12.11.2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) whereby, in accordance with Chapter III, Regulation 2(2) of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the “1921 Act”) the promotion of respondent No. 6 on class-IV post has been approved.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 6 was appointed as a Class-IV employee on 20.1.2000 when one Sri Shiv Shanker Verma was the President of the Committee of Management. The respondent No. 6 was his cousin (Mamera Bhai) and thus his appointment was invalid from the very inception in view of Regulation 22 read with Regulation 4, Chapter-III of the Regulations framed under 1921 Act which prohibits the appointment of a relative of any member of the Committee of Management in the College.

4. It is not in dispute that since the date of appointment, on Class-IV post respondent No. 6 is continuously working in the College and at no point of time his appointment was ever disputed by petitioner in any proceedings. It is only for the first time when a representation was filed on 30.10.2009 while the appointment of respondent No. 6 on Class-IV post made on 20.1.2000 was challenged by the petitioner on the above ground only for the purpose of depriving him promotion under the Regulations.

5. In fact the order of appointment of respondent No. 6 has not been challenged even in this writ petition and there is no relief seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the appointment letter of respondent No. 6. When certain persons are eligible to be considered for promotion, in order to deny a promotion or right to be considered for promotion, their appointment made long back cannot be disputed particularly when no steps were taken by the person concerned assailing the appointment before the competent authority in accordance with law within a reasonable time. Once the appointment is made and continue for a sufficient time, the appointee is entitled for all consequences flowing by virtue of such appointment as are permissible under the Rules and Regulations, governing conditions of service which includes promotion etc.

6. Sri Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that even today he is not aggrieved by the mere appointment of respondent No. 6 on Class-IV post but his grievance is that the respondent No. 6 cannot be considered for promotion to a Class-III post since his appointment in Class-IV was not valid.

7. I find no substance in the submission inasmuch as in the absence of any challenge to such appointment the respondent No. 6, for such a long time and even in this case, he would be entitled to all such consequences flowing from his status as a result of his appointment in a Class-IV post and the same cannot be denied to him for a limited purpose only.

8. In Vijay Narain Sharma v. District Inspector of Schools, Etawah and others, 1986 UPLBEC 44, this Court in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the judgment held as under :

“25. On a reading of Regulation 3 of Chapter II, it is clear that it nowhere contemplated that the teacher who challenges the seniority list can again challenge the validity of the appointment or promotion of a teacher in the college. He can only be aggrieved by the factors, if wrongly decided, as mentioned in Regulation 3. The dispute can be taken in appeal under Clause (1) of Regulation 3 quoted above. In my opinion, it is clear that while disputing the validity of the seniority list, it is not open to a teacher to challenge the appointment and promotion which had already been done. The challenge to the appointment and promotion has been specifically provided. If no challenge is made at that st