Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
Mahendra Kumar Yadav - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ - A No. 13676 of 2023 (Leading), Writ - A No. 18299 of 2023 (Connected)
Decided On : 16-12-2023
Eligibility - Promotion to Lecturer - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982, U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 - Section 12 of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 - The court discussed the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982, and U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971. It interpreted the regulations and rules governing the promotion to the post of Lecturer and emphasized the requirement of possessing the requisite qualification on the first day of the year of recruitment. The court referred to previous judgments and legal provisions to establish that eligibility for promotion is to be determined based on the first day of the year of recruitment.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner sought promotion as a Lecturer in an institution recognized under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The petitioner claimed to possess the necessary qualifications for the promotion, including a Masters Degree in Sanskrit. The dispute arose when the Regional Promotion Committee negated the petitioner's claim for promotion, citing lack of eligibility on the first day of the year of recruitment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion as he did not possess the requisite qualification on the first day of the year of recruitment, as mandated by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. The court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing that eligibility for promotion is to be determined based on the first day of the year of recruitment.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner was eligible for promotion as a Lecturer in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. The court also addressed the interpretation of the year of recruitment and the requirement of possessing the necessary qualifications on the first day of the year of recruitment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that eligibility for promotion to the post of Lecturer is to be determined based on the first day of the year of recruitment, as per the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. The court relied on previous judgments and legal provisions to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, concluding that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion as he did not possess the requisite qualification on the first day of the year of recruitment, as mandated by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel along with Sri Abhishek Kumar Saroj, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in leading and connected writ petition, Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the respondent no. 1 to 4 in the leading writ petition and connected writ petition and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Jigar Khare for respondent no.6 in the leading and connected writ petitions.
2. Since affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and they do not propose to file any further affidavits, thus both the writ petitions are being decided by a common order.
3. The case of the writ petitioner, Mahendra Kumar Yadav in both the writ petitions is that there happens to be an institution by the name of Madan Mohan Malviya Inter College, Karchana, District Prayagraj which is recognised under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the provisions U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and U.P. Act No.24 of 1971 are applicable.
4. The writ petitioner claims to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher pursuant to the recruitment exercise undertaken by U.P. Secondary Service Selection Board on 9.2.2005. It is further asserted that at the time of the induction of the writ petitioner pursuant to the selection proceedings undertaken by the Service Selection Commission on 9.2.2005 the writ petitioner possessed the academic qualifications of B.A. in Ancient History, Political Science, Sociology. In the year 1993, the writ petitioner acquired Masters Degree in Political Science and also obtained B.Ed. in the year 1999. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that he qualified the M.A. in the subject Sanskrit in 1st Division, the results whereof was declared on 27.9.2021 and the mark sheet was issued in favour of the writ petitioner on 16.11.2021.
5. Consequent to the retirement of one Sri Swatantra Kumar Pandey, on 31.3.2022 on the post of Lecturer, a vacancy stood arisen which was to be filled by way of promotion under 50% quota. The Committee of Management of the institution in question resolved to promote the writ petitioner as Lecturer on 27.2.2022. The entire papers were forwarded to the Competent Authority as envisaged under U.P. Act No.5 of 1982.
6. The Regional Promotion Committee as per Section 12 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 headed by Joint Director of Education, Prayagraj Region, Prayagraj proceeded to accord promotion to the writ petitioner on the post of Lecturer on 8.2.2023.
7. Being aggrieved against the said order, the sixth respondent, Sri Gaurav Tripathi, who was working as an Assistant Teacher (Sanskrit) since 30.3.2012 in Adarsh Gram Sabha Inter College, Charwan, Kaushambi and he was transferred in the fifth respondent institution preferred Writ-A No.3629 of 2023, Gaurav Tripathi, vs. State of U.P. & others. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 13.3.2023 while passing the following orders.
The petitioner who is currently posted as Assistant Teacher in the institution in question, is aggrieved against the order dated 08th February, 2023 issued by the office of Joint Director of Education, Prayagraj Region, Prayagraj whereby his request for grant of promotion stands brushed aside and resultantly candidature came to be registered.
Plea set up by the petitioner is that on the first day of the year of the recruitment i.e. 1st July, 2021 in respect of the vacancy of Lecturer Sanskrit in question which fell vacant on 31st March, 2022, respondent no. 6 did not possess requisite qualification of post graduation decree in the subject of Sanskrit as he was issued with the marksheet on 27th September, 2021 only i.e. subsequent to the first day of the year of the recruitment.
Learned Senior Advocate submits that legal position is that a candidate must have requis
Uncommunicated adverse entries in service records cannot invalidate a teacher's promotion rights; statutory procedures must be strictly followed in educational governance.
The qualifications for appointment must be judged by the rules in force at the time of selection, not by subsequent amendments.
Eligibility for regularization and pension is contingent upon meeting the prescribed qualifications at the time of appointment and undergoing a selection process.
The court established that promotion and direct recruitment must be treated separately under the applicable rules, ensuring eligible candidates are considered for promotion before any direct recruitm....
The court established that promotion rights under the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules must be honored, and direct recruitment cannot bypass eligible candidates for promotion.
Reserved category post with pending direct recruitment requisition cannot be filled by promotion; inadvertent process withdrawn correctly. Court mandates finalizing Recruitment & Promotion Rules befo....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
