JUDGMENT

1. In this petition for direction to opposite parties to promote Petitioner as head master of Junior High School the question that arises for consideration is if the Petitioner's seniority has to be reckoned from the date of their appointment or from the date they completed their training. Undisputedly Petitioner was appointed as Sanskrit teacher in 1962. He joined training course in 1972-73 and passed the same. In 1981 the government issued an order granting relaxation in reckoning of seniority of Sanskrit and Science teachers appointed (described as special teachers) prior to 1968 from training. The order partially modified the Government order dated fact March 1978 and directed that those teachers trained or untrained who were appointed on prescribed scale in the Junior High School shall be entitled to counting of their period as continuous and there shall be no difference in service rendered by them as special teacher and the service in the scale of trained teachers. It was also directed that service of special teachers in basic school maintained by Board shall be deemed to be continuous from the date of appointment if they were appointed prior to 1968. On 11th December 1985 applications were invited from teachers of Junior High School for promotion as head master. It, however, confined eligibility to trained teacher. The Petitioner and others were not called for interview. They made representations before Chairman of selection committee constituted Under Rule 18 of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules but they did not succeed. In counter affidavit it has been explained that Petitioner and others were not called for interview even though they were trained as sufficient number of teachers who had received training prior to 1968 that is much before Petitioner completed his training in 1973, were available. In other words petitioners has been treated as junior even though he was appointed much before opposite parties. Basis obviously was date of training.

2. Eligibility for promotion Under Rule 18 of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules is seniority alone. Therefore, Petitioner or any other teacher who was appointed as teacher in 1962 or onwards was eligible to be called for interview, when opposite parties who were appointed later and were junior to Petitioner were not only called but selected. Exclusion of Petitioner because they received training later than opposite parties is not supported by any rule or government order. Training for the post of head master of Junior High School may be imperative. But that in absence of any rule could not be basis of seniority. Requirement is training and not the period or length of training. Although even if that would have been necessary Petitioner took training in 1972-73 is more than ten years before selection. In any case the scope of any ambiguity has been ruled out as the government by its order issued in 1981 clarified that training shall not result in break of service and all those appointed prior to 1968 shall be entitled to be treated as in continuous service. Exclusion of Petitioner, therefore, was not justified.

3. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to treat all those teachers of Junior Basic Schools who were appointed prior to 1968 but received their training later on as senior in order of their appointment and call them for interview for the post of head master. The order shall not, however, effect selections already made. Parties shall bear their own costs. Copy of this order may be given within a week on proper application.