JUDGMENT

K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral)

These two Appeals arise from the common judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 2194 of 2017 (S/S). Appeal No. 530 of 2018 has been lodged by the 5th respondent Committee of Management of Mangla Devi Inter College (hereinafter referred to as the College); whereas the other Appeal has been filed by respondent no. 6 in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed claiming the relief of quashing the order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the second respondent Additional Director School Education. Further relief sought was to consider and promote the writ petitioner to the post of Lecturer (Sociology) against the vacancy available in promotion quota, which is lying vacant from 01.04.2015. In the College, there are six sanctioned posts of lecturers. According to the writ petitioner, three posts out of the said posts are to be filled up by promotion and rest three posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment. We are concerned with the post of Lecturer (Sociology). According to the writ petitioner, this post is earmarked to be filled up by promotion quota. One Rishi Pal Sharma, who was earlier serving as a Lecturer (Sociology) retired on 31.03.2015. It is, accordingly, that the vacancy arose in the post of Lecturer (Sociology) on 01.04.2015. The bone of contention between the parties arises out of the said vacancy. According to the writ petitioner, in accordance with the Regulations, which we shall refer to, he has a right to be promoted. However, on 01.04.2015, undisputedly, the writ petitioner was not possessed of the requisite qualification in that. He did not have M.A. in Sociology. He acquired the qualification of M.A. in Sociology as a private student and passed the examination on 17.11.2015. Instead of promoting him, the appellant in Special Appeal No. 493 of 2018 was brought in by way of transfer from the 7th respondent College. The present Writ Petition is the sequel to an earlier Writ Petition, which was also filed by the writ petitioner; the litigation culminated in judgment of the Division Bench in Special Appeals Nos. 362 and 364 of 2017, which, in fact, were filed by the present appellants. This Court noted that Regulation 49, under which the College decided to bring in the appellant in Special Appeal No. 493 of 2018 by way of transfer, required as a sine qua non the element that the post must be reserved for direct recruitment. The Court also took note of the fact that there are two aspects, which cast a cloud on the transfer of a teacher on the basis that it is for direct recruitment quota. Firstly, this Court noted the existence of a Chart prepared by the College itself. Secondly, the Court also noted that the previous incumbent, who occupied the post of Lecturer (Sociology) was also a promotee. The Court further noted the fact that the amendment has been carried in Regulation 6. Consequently, the Appeals were disposed of by directing the Authorities to redo the matter with respect to the question as to whether the vacancy fell in the direct recruitment quota or promotion quota. It was left open to the Authority to consider the effect of the Regulations on the rights of the parties. This was to be done after giving opportunity to the parties. It is consequent upon the same that the present impugned order has been passed. In the impugned order, the Authority has proceeded, no doubt, to record the statement of the Management that the vacancy in question is one, which arises in the promotion quota. Further, it has reiterated its earlier stand, in short, that the transfer purported to be made of the appellant in Special Appeal No. 493 of 2018 invoking Regulation 49 has been upheld. In arriving at the said conclusion, the Authority has entered a finding that the writ petitioner was not possessed of the requisite qualification as on the date of the occurrence of the vacancy.

2. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, has allowed the writ petition noting the amendment, which has bee