Hon’ble Ajit Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Sankalp Narain, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Under the order dated 18.5.2018, learned counsel for the petitioner has given notice to the counsel of the 4th respondent in writing which has been received by Sri Nitinjay Pandey who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of 4th respondent. The notice served upon counsel for the 4th respondent is taken on record.

3. The claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is for the consideration of his candidature for promotion as Assistant Clerk in the Institution as per Regulation 2(a) of Chapter III of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Act, 1921’). Admittedly there are six sanctioned posts of Clerks including Head Clerk in the Institution. In paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the writ petition, the details of the incumbents working on different positions of Head Clerk and Clerk have been detailed out. Paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 are quoted as under:

“7. That on the post of Head Clerk one Sri Ranbir Singh Bhadauria is at present working by way of promotion.

8. That out of the 5 posts of Assistant Clerk, one post is occupied by Sri Sunil Khandelwal who was appointed by way of direct recruitment. On the second post one Sri Abhai Tomar is working who was also appointed by way of direct recruitment.”

4. Thus, according to the petitioner, two persons are working on promotion basis in the Institution on Class III positions and two persons are working by direct recruitment. Admittedly as per the regulations, 50% of class-III positions are reserved to be filled in by way of promotion. The petitioner who was appointed in the Institution as a Class-IV employee by way of compassionate appointment on 9.9.2002 and joined the Institution on 17.9.2002, has the requisite experience to be considered for promotion under the 50% quota reserved for the vacancies of Class-III cadre in the Institution. The Institution is admittedly recognZed institution under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It appears that the Institution being minority Institution proceeded to fill in the two vacant posts of Clerks by means of direct recruitment and for which Management obtained certain permissions from the District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter to be referred as ‘DIOS’). Later on DIOS realZed that the Management was proceeding to make direct recruitment even against the post reserved for promotion quota and accordingly it issued the letter dated 11.4.2009 addressed to Management of the Institution and letter dated 14.5.2008 addressed to the Committee of Management that in case if the Management proceeded to fill in vacancies of clerks which were otherwise reserved under the Regulations for promotion, it would be the sole responsibility of the Management and State, in any manner, would not be liable to give any payment of salary. In a nutshell, the recitals of two letters clarify that position that at least one post which ought to have been reserved for promotion was being subjected to direct recruitment against the regulations framed under the Act, 1921.

5. A counter-affidavit has been filed only by State respondent in which it has been alleged that the Institution being minority Institution, it is open for it to fill up the vacancies as it enjoys full right and authority to fill in the vacancies either by direct recruitment or by promotion.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Full Bench judgment of this Court in Committee of Management,Swami Lila Shah Adarsh Sindhi Inter College and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2017(2) ADJ 377 (FB), wherein, this Court has held that the permissible regulations are always applicable and can be framed in respect of minority Institution. The principle laid down by Full Bench is sound principle of law in terms of service jurisprudence where the employees of same department or same Institution are