A teacher with minimum qualifications and five years of continuous service as a teacher on the date of the occurrence of the vacancy and seniority is entitled for promotion even if they had not taught the concerned subject.

S. H. A. Raza, J.

1. The petitioner, who is a Teacher, by means of this writ petition has prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the promotion of V. D. Misra opposite party no. 3 on the post of Lecturer in Hindi subject, P. B. Inter College and Ajit Sarvjanik High School, Pratapgarh as well as for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 (Managing Committee of the said Institution) to promote the petitioner as Lecturer in Hindi subject, in the said school, mainly on the ground that the opposite party No. 3 was not at all the Teacher of Hindi subject and was not entitled to be promoted as Lecturer in Hindi subject, and as the petitioner had already completed more than five years experience in L. T. grade in teaching Hindi subject, hence he was entitled to be promoted as Lecturer in Hindi subject out of 40 per cent quota of the posts protected under the Regulation for promotion. A counter-affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 3 and opposite party no. 1 (Chairman, U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and others) has been filed in which it was asserted that as per para. 1 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under section 16-E, 16-F and 16-FF of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 the minimum qualifications for appointment of Teachers in any recognised institution have been prescribed in Appendix A. The allegations of the petitioner that only such senior most teacher, who taught Hindi in L. T. Grade, could be considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Hindi) is wrong. There is no such provision in the Rules or Regulations framed for promotion from L. T. Grade to Lecturer. That only when a teacher had teaching experience of a particular subject, in L. T. Grade, he would be promoted. The allegations of the petitioner that he was the senior most Teacher in L. T. Grade was also incorrect. According to the Seniority List received from the Committee of Management, Sri V. D. Misra was senior most and the petitioner Sheo Shanker Lal was at the second position. Sri B. P. Misra is post-graduate in Hindi and had served for move than five years in L. T. Grade on the date of vacancy, which occurred on 16-7-87, due to death of Sri ladra Kumar Singh, Lecturer (Hindi). The opposite party No. 3 in his affidavit has stated that he had completed M. A. in Hindi in the year 1959 and is fully qualified to assume the post of Lecturer in Hindi. The petitioner joined L. T. Grade in 1969 and opposite party no. 3 joined in the L. T. Grade in the same institution in 1955. He being the senior most Teacher in the institution having full qualifications for promotion as Lecturer in Hindi was rightly promoted. It is wholly irrelevant that the petitioner has been teaching Hindi in L. T. Grade for the purposes of the promotion in the Lecturer grade. The relevant question is the seniority and the qualification for promotion in Lecturer grade in Hindi. L T. grade teacher teaches at least three subjects and promotion or appointment in L. T. Grade is never made subject wise. As opposite party No. 3 has the qualification to teach Hindi in L. T. grade he was rightly selected by the Commission.

2. The petitioner in support of his case has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1988 UP LB EC 730=1987 Education Cases 33 in which the plea of an experienced teacher in a particular subject or appointment in the event of any vacancy was upheld. In view of the aforesaid decision the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 3, who did not possess any experience in teaching Hindi, cannot claim the advantage of promotion in place of the applicant who possessed an experience of more than five years in teaching Hindi subject in the said institution. The Full Bench decision in the aforesaid writ petition related to a case of 1979 when the U. P. Secondary Service Commission Rules were not in force. After enforcement of these rules the provisions contained in U. P.