The main legal point established is that seniority and eligibility for promotion are determined by the relevant provisions of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection card Rules, 1998.

( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for a parties.

( 2 ) THIS petition is directed against an order dated 15. 3. 2002 by which the respondent No. 4 has been appointed as a lecturer in Sanskrit by promotion and also the consequential order dated 21. 3. 2002.

( 3 ) SURENDRA Nath Sen Balika Vidyalaya Inter College is a duly recognized and aided intermediate inititution. The petitioner was granted adhoc appointment as L. T. grade teacher on 5. 10. 1990 and subsequently her services were regularized on the aid post w. e. f. 7th August, 1993 under Section 33-B of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), The contesting respondent No. 4 was appointed as Assistant teacher in the C. T. grade on 8th November 1982, however, in view of Section 33-D of the Act she claims deemed appointment in the L. T. grade with effect from 7. 11. 1992 A vacancy on the post of lecturer arose in the institution on 2. 4. 2000 on account of death of the incumbent Smt. Bandana Tripathi. This vacancy, admittedly, fell within the promotional quota. The respondent no. 4 has been appointed and approved on the said post, which has led to the filing of the present petition.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner had been shown senior to the respondent No. 4 throughout in the institution and even assuming her deemed appointment in the l. T. grade, if it relates back to 1992, she could not be promoted, as on the date of vacancy she did not have five years teaching experience as a regular teacher in that grade.

( 5 ) THE procedure and eligibility for appointment by promotion is provided under the Uttar pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection card Rules, 1998, which came into force from 8th August, 1998. Rule 14 Sub-clause (2) provides that the criteria for promotion shall be seniority subject to the rejection of unfit. Sub-rule (1) stipulate? that all incumbent for promotion who possess the qualifications prescribed for the post and have completed five years continuous regular service on the first day of the year of recruitment, even though they may not have applied for such promotion would be considered. Under Sub-rule (3) the management is obliged to send a list of such qualified and eligible teachers with a copy of the seniority list and other documents to the Inspector who, after verification, has to forward it to the Joint director Education, who is further obliged to place the same before the Regional Selection Committee which would recommend the name of the incumbent to the management. It is undisputed that the petitioner was initially appointed on adhoc basis on 1st. of October, 1990 and was granted substantial appointment under Section 33-B of the Act w. e. f. 7th. August, 1993. It is also undisputed that the contesting respondent was appointed in the C. T. grade on 8th November, 1982 and by legal fiction under Section 33-B of the Act, she is deemed to be appointed in the LT. grade on 7. 11. 1992 having put in more than ten years of continuous regular service in the C. T. grade. Inter se seniority between teachers in a institution is governed by regulation 3 of Chapter II. Clause (b) of Rule 3 Sub-clause (1) mandates that seniority of teachers in a grade is to be determined on the basis of their substantive appointment in that grade. Since the respondent No. 4 was granted the benefit of Section 33d of-the Act, her deemed appointment in the L. T. grade relates back to 7th November 1992 while the petitioner was granted substantive appointment in the L. T. grade only on 7th August, 1993 by virtue of Section 33d Thus, it is apparent that the respondent No. 4 was senior to the petitioner in L. T. grade. Even though the petitioner was shown senior to respondent No. 4 in the earlier years but that would be immaterial in new of the fact that Section 33d was brought in the Statute book only w. e. f. 20th April, 1998.

( 6 ) THE contention that the respondent No. 4