The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of requisite qualification and experience for promotion, as per the decision in Smt. Basanti Gaur v. Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, and the maintainability of the appeal against previous orders.

Sangeeta Chandra, J.

Vijay Kumar Dubey is assailing the validity of the order dated 17.02.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21251 of 1990 filed by the petitioner-respondent Anand Vardhan Tripathi as well as order dated 06.11.2012 whereby recall application filed by the petitioner-appellant has been rejected in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21251 of 1990 (Anand Vardhan Tripathi v. D.I.O.S. and others).

2. Brief background of the case in brief is that Anand Vardhan Tripathi preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21251 of 1990, assailing therein the validity of the orders dated 08.06.1990 and 23.07.1990 whereby District Inspector of Schools, Deoria has approved the promotion of Vijay Kumar Dubey as Lecturer (History) on ad-hoc basis till regular appointment was made by candidate selected and recommended by the U.P. Secondary Education Selection Board.

3. Said writ petition was taken up for final hearing on 17.02.2012 and learned Single Judge of this Court has proceeded to pass following order:-

"The writ petition is directed against the orders dated 8.6.1990 and 23.7.1990 (Annexure Nos. 3 and 6 respectively to the writ petition) whereby the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria has approved promotion of respondent no. 3 as Lecturer (History) on ad hoc basis till regular appointment is made by a candidate selected and recommended by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board.

It is contended that respondent no. 3 did not full fill the requisite qualification in as much as he was appointed as Demonstrator in the subject of Chemistry in L.T. Grade on 1.11.1975, though the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade on 12.11.1979. The respondent no. 3 passed M.A. (History) in the year 1988 and, therefore, did not had requisite experience of five years in the subject concerned so as to become eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer (History) even on ad hoc basis. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Smt. Basanti Gaur v. Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, VII Region Gorakhpur and others, 1987 UBLBEC 121 (FB), wherein this Court has observed that five years experience must be in the subject concerned otherwise the incumbent cannot be held to be a person suitable for appointment on the post in question.

Since respondent no. 3 obtained degree in M.A. (History) only in 1998 and the impugned selection has been made in 1990, it is evident that respondent no. 3 lack requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Lecturer (History) and, therefore, his promotion on the said post is patently illegal.

In view of above decision in Smt. Basanti Gaur v. Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools (Supra), the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 8.6.1990 and 23.7.1990 are hereby quashed".

4. Aggrieved against the order dated 17.02.2012, Special Appeal No. 324 of 2012 (Vijay Kumar Dubey v. D.I.O.S. and others) has been preferred and said special appeal in question was rejected on 18.04.2012 with liberty to move fresh application before the learned Single Judge, as arguments were advanced that the said order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the appellant. Order dated 18.04.2012 is as follows:-

ekuuh; ;rhUnz flag] U;k;ewfrZ

ekuuh; eksgEen rkfgj] U;k;ewfrZ

1- vihykFkhZ ds vf/koDrk dk dFku gS fd vkisf{kr vkns'k mls fcuk lqus ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA

2- vihykFkhZ ds vf/koDrk dk dFku gS fd mls ;g vihy okil ysus dh vuqefr] ,dy U;k;ihB ds le{k vkosnu i= nsus dh Lora=rk ds lkFk] nh tk,A

3- vihykFkhZ ds vf/koDrk ds vuqjks/k ij ;g vihy mDr Lora=rk ds lkFk [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA

5. Thereafter, this much is reflected that recall application was moved and said recall application has been rejected on 06.11.2012, as follows:-

"Writ petition was decided in presence of learned counsels for parties and after hearing them. This application has been filed by a new counsel who was admittedly not a counsel of an