The appointment and promotion process must adhere to the provisions of the relevant Acts and Rules, and the eligibility criteria for promotion must be met by the candidates.

Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Khare, senior advocate assisted by Sri V. K. Singh for petitioner and Sri S. K. Verma for respondent No. 7. Sri R. S. Parihar learned standing counsel appears for rest of the respondents.

2. The Raghunath Girls Inter College, Meerut is a recognised and aided Intermediate College, and is governed by the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U. P. Secondary Education and Selection Boards Act No. 5 of 1982 and U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971. The petitioner applied and was selected in April, 2004, for ad hoc appointment against a vacant post of assistant teacher in L.T. grade. The appointment letter was issued on 24.4.1993. The petitioner joined on 27.4.1993 and is serving since thereafter in Trained Teacher’s grade. She claims to be regularised under Section 33C of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982, as amended on 30.4.1998 providing for regularisation of ad hoc teachers appointed prior to 6.8.1993. The Joint Director of Education, Meerut Region, Meerut, vide his order dated 26.6.2000 conveyed the decision of Selection Committee to regularise petitioner’s appointment in L.T. grade.

3. Km. Sushma Batra, a permanent Lecturer in English in the institution retired on 30.6.2001, causing a substantive vacancy on the post of Lecturer in English. It is contended that the vacancy fell in 50% quota for promotion. The petitioner is M.A. in Arts and M.A. in English, and is qualified for appointment. The Committee of Management in its meeting dated 14.6.2003 resolved to promote the petitioner as Lecturer in English in promotion quota, and that since after 1.7.2003, the petitioner is teaching English as a subject to Classes XI and XII. The U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad (in short the Board) issued an order dated 7.1.2004 recommending that Smt. Geeta, respondent No. 7, be appointed as Lecturer in English. The District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 27.1.2004 directed the management to grant appointment to Smt. Geeta, and that on 6.2.2003 the Inspector returned the papers relating to promotion of the petitioner with his findings that she is ineligible as she does not have five years regular service to her credit for promotion.

4. Sri Ashok Khare, senior counsel, submits that the post of Lecturer in English was never advertised. The respondent No. 7, was selected for some other institution and has been sent to Raghunath Girls College, Meerut, by way of adjustment. Sri S. K. Verma, senior counsel, appearing for respondent No. 7 submits that advertisement is made by the Board subjectwise, and that respondent No. 7 was selected for the post of Lecturer in English. Her appointment by way of direct recruitment has not been challenged by the petitioner.

5. In Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, 1998 (1) UPLBEC 743, the Supreme Court considered the scope of the provisions of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and held that the filling up the vacancies under sub-section (4) of Section 13, on the vacancy already advertised arises only in case the person does not join or on account of the death or resignation, or transfer after joining became invalid for such unforeseen circumstances. In other words, all such circumstances have to be within the vacancies already advertised and not beyond it. The list prepared under sub-section (2) of Section 13 shall be valid till the receipt of new list from the Commission. The Division Bench in its judgment in Dr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta v. State of U. P., 1995 (2) ESC 393, against which the Supreme Court decided the civil appeal held that if the Director and Commission work with the normal time schedule, there would not arise any occasion for the management to make any ad hoc appointment. Where the candidate does not join, the management will intimate the Director and the Director will intimate a fresh name from the list sent by the Commission under Section 13 (1). This contingency must happen within the academic year because the time limit f