By the Court.—This appeal questions the correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge in a Writ Petition filed by the appellant rejecting his claim for promotion as a Lecturer in English in Kundan Model Inter College, Amroha, District J.P. Nagar, and upholding the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 18.8.2010 whereby the transfer on the said post in favour of Respondent No. 5 has been approved.

2. The facts in detail are already set out in the judgment of the learned single Judge but for the purpose of this appeal, we may reiterate that the appellant, who is a LT grade teacher in the institution, claims that the post of Lecturer in English is required to be filled in within 50% promotion quota as per the relevant Rules applicable and accordingly the applicant being fully qualified and eligible for the same ought to have been promoted on the post in question.

3. The said post was sought to be filled in by transfer of Respondent No. 5 under Regulations 55 to 60 of Chapter-III which was being resisted by the appellant.

4. The claim of the appellant has been rejected and the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant does not hold the requisite qualification of 5 years’ teaching experience as required under the Rules as a Teacher having occupied the feeder post in regular continuous capacity. The learned single Judge refused to accept the claim of the appellant for treating his service as a subject expert prior to his appointment in a substantive capacity for being counted towards his experience.

5. It is this finding by the learned single Judge, which has been assailed before us and Sri L.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the learned single Judge has committed an error by not adding the said service inasmuch as there is no such prohibition under the Rules to count such services for the purposes of experience.

6. It is undisputed that the appellant was appointed as a subject expert under a separate scheme promulgated by the State Government on 11.10.1999 through a Government Order. The said order is quoted in extenso in the judgment of the learned single Judge. The provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act 1982, provides for the mode of recruitment of Teachers in such institutions including absorption under Section 21-E of the said Act. The said section has also been quoted by the learned single Judge and it is under the said provision that the appellant was absorbed as a LT grade Teacher in the regular cadre vide order dated 12.9.2007.

7. The post of Lecturer in English fell vacant and claiming promotion on the said post, the appellant contended that his services rendered as a subject expert prior to his substantive appointment in the LT grade on 12.9.2007 deserves to be counted. The Rule for promotion is Rule 14 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules 1998. The said Rule has also been extracted in the judgment of the learned single Judge which requires that the post which has to be filled by promotion has to be offered to a Teacher working in the Trained Graduate Trade, who possesses the qualification prescribed and has completed 5 years’ continuous regular service, as such, on the first day of the year of recruitment.

8. The facts as disclosed leave no room for doubt that even though the appellant had been appointed as a subject expert Teacher under the Scheme dated 11.10.1999 in 2001 itself, he acquired the status of a substantively and regularly appointed LT grade Teacher only on 12.9.2007 upon absorption.

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the services prior to that should also be treated as regular continuous service for the purpose of experience inasmuch as the appellant was teaching the same classes in the same institution where other LT grade teachers were appointed. The services of the appellant were governed by the provisions of relevant sche