By the Court.—An interesting question has arisen for consideration in this Special Appeal which has been filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 against a judgment of a learned Judge of this Court by which the writ petition filed by the appellant for being considered for promotion on the post of a Lecturer in Seth Mukund Lal (Vidya Kendra) Inter College, Mukund Nagar, Ghaziabad (the College) was dismissed.

2. The issue that arises for consideration is whether under Rule 14 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 (1998 Rules) only teachers working in trained graduates grade or certificate of Teaching grade can be considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer who possess the qualification prescribed and have completed five years continuous regular service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment in the subject in which the vacancy is to be filled by promotion.

3. In order to appreciate the issue it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the Rule 14 of the 1998 Rules, which are as follows:

“14. Procedure for recruitment by promotion.—

(1) Where any vacancy is to be filled by promotion, all teachers working in Trained graduates grade or Certificate of Teaching grade, if any, who possess the qualifications prescribed for the post and have completed five years continuous regular service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment shall be considered for promotion to the Lecturers grade or the Trained graduates grade, as the case may be, without their having applied for the same.

Note.—For the purposes of this sub-rule, regular service rendered in any other recognised institution shall be counted for eligibility, unless interrupted by removal, dismissal or reduction to a lower post.

(2) The criterion for promotion shall be seniority subject to the rejection of unfit.

(3) .......................

(4) .......................

(5) .......................

(6) .....................”

4. Learned Judge rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that only such teachers who have completed regular service as contemplated in Rule 14 in the subject in which the vacancy is to be filled for the reason that this Rule does not contemplate such a requirement.

5. The contention of Sri Y.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that cases of only such teachers who have completed five years continuous regular service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment on the post for which the vacancy has actually arisen can be considered for promotion even in the absence of a requirement in Rule 14 of the 1998 Rules. In support of this contention learned counsel has placed reliance upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Basanti Gaur v. Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, VII Region, Gorakhpur and others, AIR 1987 All 191 and also upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Laxmi Narain Yadav v. District Inspector of School and others, 1998 (6) LCD 24. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that though these decisions have been rendered in the context of Regulation 6 contained Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 but the principles enumerated in these two decisions need to be applied to the provisions of the 1998 Rules also.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1,3 and 5 and Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 have, however, contended that a plain reading of the Rule 14 of the 1998 Rules leaves no manner of doubt that the requirement of having experience of teaching in the same subject that has been insisted upon by the writ petitioner is not a requirement contained in the 1998 Rules. Learned counsel for the respondents have placed before the Court the provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 (1983 Rules) framed under Section 35 of the Uttar P