Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as “appellant”) and Sri R.K. Singh, Advocate, for respondents.

2. This Intra Court Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has arisen from judgment dated 28.10.2010 of learned Single Judge dismissing appellant’s Writ Petition No. 36726 of 2010.

3. The dispute relates to seniority and in the context of eligibility for promotion, meaning and effect of the words “continuous regular service” contained in Rule 14 of U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection) Board Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 1998 “). It is also argued that learned Single Judge ought not to have answered himself this question when in other matters, there is already a reference made to Larger Bench.

4. Facts giving rise to the present dispute revolve in narrow compass and it would be useful to have a retrospection thereof for better understanding.

5. Municipal Inter College, Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad (hereinafter referred to as “College”) is a secondary educational institution recognised by U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate, governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1921”). Since the College is in grant-in-aid also, teaching and non teaching staff, for the purpose of salary, is governed by U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1971”) and for the purpose of recruitment of teaching staff, U.P Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1982”) and Rules and Regulations framed thereunder govern it.

6. One Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade), namely, Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan, after attaining the age of superannuation, and at the end of session, retired on 30.6.1989 resulting in a substantive vacancy of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) in the College.

7. The vacancy was notified to U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) on 13.8.1989. Since the candidate recommended by Board did not become available for appointment in the College, procedure for ad hoc appointment was initiated.

8. Though petitioner’s ad hoc appointment has been regularised by the educational authorities, but here also we are constrained to observe that some glaring facts have been omitted, which, if correct, show something patently illegal rendering entire transaction of regularisation, void ab-initio. In para 4 of writ petition, the appellant himself has pleaded that the vacancy of Assistant Teacher occurred due to retirement of one Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan on 30.6.1989. It was notified to Commission on 13.8.1989. The advertisement was published in daily news-paper “Dainik Jagran” on 18.12.1989. Thereafter in para 5 of writ petition, things have gone ante-dated inasmuch there he has pleaded that he applied pursuant to the advertisement for ad hoc appointment and was duly selected for the post, and, by letter dated 16.12.1989, appointed on the post of L.T. Grade Teacher. The appointment was also approved by DIOS vide Letter No. 8753-56/89-90 and it was again approved on 3.7.1990. The averments contained in para 4 and 5 of the writ petition are reproduced as under:

“4. That, a post of Assistant Teacher fell vacant in the college on the retirement of Shri Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan on 30.6.1989. The vacancy was notified to the commission on 13.8.1989 and it was advertised in the Daily News paper Dainik Jagran Dated 18.12.89 for Ad hoc appointment in L.T. Grade.

5. That, the petitioner has passed M.A. (Sociology) and B.Ed. and being eligible for the post of L.T. Grade applied for ad hoc appointment. He was duly selected for the post and by letter dated 16.12.1989 was appointed on the post of L.T. Grade Teacher. The District Inspector of Schools granted approval to the appointment of