Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—This petition seeks quashing of an order passed by the Regional Level Committee dated 25th July, 2017, whereby approval granted to petitioner’s promotion to the post of lecturer on 30th December, 2016 has been withdrawn, purportedly in compliance of the judgement delivered by the larger Bench of this Court in Smt. Sadhna v. State of U.P. and others, 2017(6) ADJ 418.

2. Facts, which are not in dispute, are that petitioner was selected by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade, on 29.11.2006, and he was placed in Baldev Vaidik Inter College, Paliya Kala, District Lakhimpur Kheri. He was thereafter transferred to Jai Ram Verma Bapu Smarak Inter College Nausanda, Ambedkar Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘institution’), and he joined on 18.10.2011. Although petitioner claims to have been selected as lecturer in Geography also, but he was not allowed to join pursuant thereto, and the issue in that regard is subjudice in different proceedings, with which this Court is not concerned in this petition. The issue involved is confined to legality and validity of petitioner’s promotion to the post of lecturer alone.

3. In the transferred institution i.e. Jai Ram Verma, Bapu Smarak Inter College Nausanda, Ambedkar Nagar, one Ram Surat Verma retired from the post of lecturer, in Geography, on 30th June, 2011. Vacancy on the post of lecturer was thus created on 1.7.2011. Petitioner claims that since he possessed requisite qualification, he was allowed to work against such post. A resolution was subsequently passed by the Committee of Management to promote the petitioner to the post of lecturer, on 9.12.2014, treating the year of recruitment as beginning on 1.7.2013. This resolution was passed as nobody else was eligible/qualified for promotion to the post of lecturer. Papers were forwarded for grant of financial approval. This resolution, however, was rejected by the Joint Director of Education, on the ground that on the date of accrual of vacancy i.e. 1.7.2011, the petitioner did not fulfill the qualification of having five years teaching experience, in view of sub-rule (I) of Rule 14 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998. As per the Rule eligibility/qualification has to be seen on the first day of the year of recruitment.

4. The order dated 9.7.2014 was challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 6567 (S/S) of 2014, which came to be dismissed on 19.11.2014. A review petition was thereafter filed relying upon the larger Bench judgement in Raeesul Hasan v. State of U.P. and others, 2015(6) ADJ 778. Para 31 of the larger Bench judgement in Raeesul Hasan (Supra) reads as under :

“We are unable to subscribe to the correctness of the view which has been expressed in the decision in Km. Poonam and in the earlier decisions which it followed. The duty of the Court, while interpreting any legislation, is to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used by the legislature. In the course of interpretation, it is not open to the Court, to re-write the words of the statute. Section 2 (l) of the Act specifically defines the ‘year of recruitment’ to mean a period of twelve months commencing from the first day of July of a calendar year. Rule 14 contains an express provision by which, where any vacancy is to be filled in by promotion, all teachers working in the trained graduates grade or Certificate of Teaching grade who possess the qualifications prescribed and have completed five years’ continuous regular service on the first day of the year of recruitment shall be considered for promotion. The expression ‘all’ must be given its plain and natural meaning. Every teacher who fulfills the norm of eligibility on the first day of the year of recruitment has to be considered for promotion. A teacher who fulfills the prescribed norm cannot be excluded on the ground that he/she did not fulfill the condition of eligibility when the vacan