Ram Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

V.K. Shukla, J.—Ram Pal Singh, has approached this Court questioning the validity of the order dated 13.08.2010 passed by Regional Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region Kanpur, holding mentioning therein that Udai Prakash Agnihotri is senior vis-a-vis Ram Pal Singh, and on the first date of year of recruitment Udai Prakash Agnihotri is eligible and further directives have been issued to ensure proceeding for promotion.

Brief background of the case is that in the District of Farrukhabad there is recognised institution know as Municipal Inter College, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad. Said institution is duly covered by the provisions of U.P. Act No. II of 1921; U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 and U.P. Act No. V of 1982 and the 1998 Rules framed thereunder. In the said institution Ram Pal Singh, was appointed as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade on adhoc basis on 16.12.1989 and his services have been regularized under the order passed by District Inspector of Schools Farrukhbad on 15.10.1994 w.e.f. 07.08.1993 u/s 33B of U.P. Act No. V of 1982. Udai Prakash Agnihotri has been appointed in the institution concerned in C.T. Grade on 05.03.1980 and under the order passed by District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 23.04.1990 on completion of 10 years of service has been accorded L.T. scale of pay w.e.f. 05.03.1990. Date of substantive appointment of Ram Pal Singh as L.T. Grade teacher and in term of Section 33D of U.P. Act No. V of 1982 is dated 05.03.1990. In the institution concerned post of Lecturer in Sociology fell vacant on account of retirement of Vimal Chandra Katiyar and against the said vacancy in question, papers of Babu Ram Shakya, Ram Pal Singh and Udai Prakash Agnihotri was forwarded and thereafter Regional Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region Kanpur passed order mentioning therein that selection committee constituted in term of Section 12 of U.P. Act No. V of 1982 has been placed to accord promotion to Ram Pal Singh on the post of Lecturer in Sociology. Said order passed in favour of Ram Pal Singh has been subject matter of challenge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47707 of 2000 and thereafter this Court has proceeded to pass following order which is being quoted below.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition.

The Court finds that there is a serious dispute inter se seniority between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 which inturn would reflect upon their respective claims for being promoted against the vacancy which has been caused in the institution.

Rule-14 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules 1998 provides that all teachers working in trained graduates grate or certificate of teaching grade, if any, who possesses the qualifications, prescribed for the post and have completed five years continuous regular service as such on the first date of the year of recruitment shall be considered for promotion to the lecturers grade or the trained graduates, as the case may by. For the purpose the management is obliged to prepare a list of teachers referred to in Sub-rule (1) and forward it to the Inspector with a copy of seniority list. Rule 14 (50 of the Rules 1998, is relevant for out purposes and the same reads as follows:

(5) The Joint Director shall consider the cases of the candidates on the basis of the records referred to in Sub-rule (3) and may call for such additional information as it may consider necessary. The Joint Director shall place the records before the Selection Committee referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 12 and after the Committee''s recommendation, shall forward the panel of selected candidates within one month to the Inspector with a copy thereof to the Management.

From bare reading of the aforesaid rule, it is apparently clear that the Joint Director is obliged to consider the cases of the candidates on the basis of records with reference to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 and the Joint Director is, thereafter, obliged to place the records before the Selection Committee referable to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of Act, 1982.

Since in the facts of the present case the aforesaid exercise has not been undertaken and the Regional Joint Director of Education has not considered the claim of the petitioner vis-a-vis that of the respondent No. 4 before placing the records before the Selection committee the impugned order cannot be legally sustained. Consequently, the order dated 28th August, 2000 is hereby set aside. Let the Regional Joint Director of Education, Kanpur do the needful in term of Sub-rule 5 of Rule 14 of Rules 1998 within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. He shall thereafter place the records of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 before the Selection Committee which shall taken final decision in the matter within a further period of four weeks. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the Inspector for necessary action.

This Court may clarify that if the authorities come to the conclusion that respondent No. 4 is entitled for such promotion then it would logically follows that he would become entitled to the salary from the date he has actually worked as Lecturer under the earlier order of promotion dated 28th August, 2000. However, if the case is otherwise, notional promotion may be recommended by the Selection Committee in favour of the petitioner, but payment of salary as lecturer in his favour shall taken effect from the date of promotion only. The present writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made above.

Pursuant to aforesaid order passed by this Court exercise has been undertaken and therein declaration has been made that Udai Prakash Agnihotri is senior vis-a-vis Ram Pal Singh and further on the first day of year of recruitment Ram Pal Singh is not possessing requisite qualification as he has not completed five years continuous regular service, in this background requisite orders have been passed. At this juncture present writ petition in question has been filed.

Sri P.C. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case totally incorrect opinion has been formed qua petitioner that petitioner has not at all got to his credit five years regular continuous service whereas fact of the matter is that petitioner''s appointment has been made on 16.12.1989 and his appointment has been regularized and requisite communication has been sent on 15.10.1994 extending the benefit of regularization w.e.f. 07.08.1993 as such observation made are perverse and unjustifiable observations in this background writ petition as it has been framed and drawn is liable to be allowed.

Countering the said submission, learned Standing counsel as well as Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri R.K. Singh Advocate contended that petitioner lacks requisite minimum eligibility criteria and in this background opinion which has been formed is rightful opinion and no advantage or benefit can be extended to the petitioner qua his adhoc service rendered by him for determining eligibility as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.

At this juncture Rules 10 & 14 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Rules 1998 is being looked into.

Rules 10. Source of recruitment- Recruitment to various categories of teachers:

(a) Principal of an By direct recruitment Intermediate College or Head Master of a High School

(b) Teachers of lecturers grade (i) 50 per cent by direct recruitment (ii) 50 per cent by promotion from amongst substantively appointed teachers of trained graduate grade

(c) Teachers of Trained promotion from amongst graduate grade substantively appointed teachers of trained graduate grade

Provided that if in any year of recruitment suitable eligible candidates are not available for recruitment by promotion, the posts may be filled in by direct recruitment

Provided further that if in calculating respective percentage of posts under this rule there comes a fraction then the fraction of the post to be filled by direct recruitment shall be ignored and fraction of the post to be filled by promotion shall be increased to make it one post

Rule 14 of Rules 1998

Procedure for recruitment by promotion:

(1) Where any vacancy is to be filled by promotion all teaches working in trained graduates grade or certificate of training grade, if any, who possess the qualification prescribed for the post and have completed five years continuous regular service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment shall be considered for promotion to the lecturers grade or the trained graduates grade, as the case may be, without their having applied for the same.

Note: For the purposes of this sub-rule, regular service rendered in any other recognized institution shall be counted for eligibility unless interrupted by removal dismissal or reduction to a lower post.

(2) The criterion for promotion shall be seniority subject to the rejection of unfit.

(3) The Management shall prepare a list of teachers referred to in Sub-rule (1), and forward it to the Inspector with a copy of seniority list, service records, including the character rolls, and a statement in the pro forma given in Appendix-A

(4) Within three weeks of the receipt of the list from the management under Sub-rule (3), the Inspector shall verify the facts from the record of his office and forward the list to the Joint Director.

(5) The Joint Director shall consider the cases of the candidates on the basis of the records referred to in Sub-rule (3) and may call for such additional information as it may consider necessary. The Joint Director shall place the records before the Selection Committee referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 12 and after the Committee''s recommendation, shall forward the panel of selected candidates within one month to the Inspector with a copy thereof to the Management.

(6) With ten days of the receipt of the panel from the Joint Director under Sub-rule (5) the Inspector shall send the name of the selected candidates to the Management of the institution which has notified the vacancy and the Management shall accordingly on authorization under its resolution issue the appointment order in the proforma given in Appendix ''F'' to such candidate.

From the reading of Rule 10 of 1998 Rules it is clear that 50% of the vacancies in Lecturer''s Grade is to be filled up by way of promotion from amongst substantively appointed teachers of Trained Graduate Grade (LT). For being considered for promotion under 50% quota Trained Graduate Teacher has to have substantive status in the said capacity and in addition to the same in terms of Rule 14 of 1998 Rules, has to have on the first day of year of recruitment completed five years continuous regular service. These are the essential condition prescribed for being considered for promotion. Substantive appointment has been defined under Rule 2 (d) of 1998 Rules as an appointment not being an ad-hoc appointment on the post of teacher made in accordance with the provisions in the Act and the Rules made thereunder and includes the appointment regularized u/s 33A; 33B or 33C. Though specifically qua appointees absorbed u/s 21E no reference has been given but the scheme of things provided for u/s 21E of the Act, clearly shows that said subject experts have been absorbed against substantive vacancy to be filled in by direct recruitment and until and unless all subject experts are not absorbed, appointment of any teacher u/s 16 has been prohibited in such a situation from the date of their absorption "Subject Experts" will be treated as substantively appointed Trained Graduate Teacher (L.T. Grade).

Substantive status as L.T. Grade Teacher is there. The second requirement is that of five years continuous regular service on the first day of year of recruitment.

The expression "regular service" has not been defined either under U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921 or U.P. Act No. V of 1982 or the Rules formed thereunder i.e. 1998 Rules.

In the case of Smt. Suman Bhatnagar v. State of U.P. 2006 (1) ESC 348 , a learned Single Judge of this Court after taking into account dictionary meaning of word regular service has held as follows:

The meaning of the word regular as understood in ordinary parlance is in accordance with rules, law or principle, in accordance with custom; normal; unvarying; orderly; properly authorized. In Blacks Law Dictionary 5th edition pp. 1155 defines the word ''Regular'' as conformable to law, steady or uniform in course, practice, or occurrence made according to rule arranged according to established plan, law or principle. Antonym of ''casual'' or "occasional".

Webster''s Dictionary, Volume II, page 1913 defines "regular" as to mean "formed" built, arranged or ordered according to some established rule, law principle...." Compare irregular..."Regular" may imply conformity to a prescribed rule.

The appointment of the petitioner stands saved under the Rules and, as such, in these circumstances, the appointment of the petitioner can be safely termed as regular. It is also admitted on record that the petitioner continued to serve as LT grade Teacher without any break and was also approved by the District Inspector of Schools. Thus, the definition as provided under Rule 14 quoted herein above, clearly covers the case of the petitioner. The respondents seem to be confusing with the word substantive inasmuch as the word used in Rule 14 are not the effect that the petitioner should be appointed on a substantive basis in LT grade.

The definition of the word substantive as understood ordinarily is lasting for a long time; spread over a long period; expressing existence; real; independently and separately existent; not merely inferential or implied; not substantive.

A comparison of the meaning of the aforesaid two words namely regular and substantive leave no room for doubt that the words are not synonymous. It is something different that services in a substantive capacity would almost in all cases be regular but the converse may not be true. Every regular service need not be substantive in nature. A regular service in the present context would be an appointment made under the Rules and not de hors the same so as to make it regular. The appointment on ad hoc basis is also under the Rules and under a regular procedure prescribed under the Rules. Not only this, such an appointment has the approval of the competent authority as indicated hereinabove and acknowledged by the respondents therefore, it would not be appropriate to equate the word "regular" with the word "substantive". In Rule 14 referred to herein above, the legislature has very consciously used the words regular and not substantive. The continuity in service for the purpose of coming within the zone of consideration in service acquire under a regular procedure prescribed in law and is not necessarily to be construed on substantive basis. However, the candidate should be occupying the post in the feeder cadre on substantive basis on the date when he is to be considered for promotion.

The suggestion of the learned Standing Counsel that in effect the phrase continuous regular service means substantive cannot be accepted. His further argument to the effect that the words suggest surplus age also cannot be countenanced as unless and until it can be shown that the words were used loosely, the legislature cannot be termed to have acted in its wisdom for having used words, which it intended to mean otherwise. Surplus age cannot be inferred when the phrase is emphatic and is not hedged by any confusion. A least the Court in such a situation cannot interpret otherwise.

The other reason to conclude in the manner aforesaid is that the process of regularisation takes a long time and is usually determined after a long passage of time making it almost uncertain. This procedure, therefore, will be presumed to be in the knowledge of the Rule framing Authority, which has deliberately not used the words substantive in Rule 14 in such circumstances. Regularization of the services of the petitioner does not make his earlier services irregular. The ad hoc tenure attains the status of a substantive tenure which process is termed as regularisation. Regularization means in simple language to put in order and to bring about in accordance with Rules. An appointment which is ad hoc, is made in accordance with Rules of substantive appointment, so as to enable a candidate to join the main stream cadre. For the purpose of eligibility what is required is continuity in service. The services of the petitioner continued un-interrupted even on ad hoc basis and were subsequently regularized.

The words are "continuous regular service". As already explained hereinabove, the petitioner fulfills the aforesaid condition and therefore, the impugned order is erroneous in law and is liable to be set aside. The order dated 07.08.2004 is quashed. This Court is supported in its view by the decision in the case of Committee of Management, B.D. Bajoria Inter College, Saharanpur and others Vs. Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow and others,

In the case of Sambhoo Prasad v. Authorized Controller, Sarva Hitaishi Inter College Ghaziabad and Ors. reported 2008 (4) ESC 2923 (All) another Single Judge has termed the judgment in the case Smt. Suman Bhatnagar as perincurium by taking following view as follows:

The expressions ''regular service'' has not been defined either under the provisions of the Act or rules framed thereunder or under U.P. Fundamental Rules contained in Chapter 2 Vol. 2 Part II to IV of Financial Handbook, which defines various general conditions of Government service, therefore, it is necessary to examine the content and import of the aforesaid expressions by taking help of dictionary meaning assigned to the aforesaid expressions and other recognised mode of interpretation of statute.

In Law of Lexicons the expression '' regular'' and ''regular services'' have been assigned meanings at page 1638-1639 as under:

Regular - Webster defines "regular" to mean conformable to a rule; methodical; periodical.

"REGULAR" is derived from "regula", meaning "rule", and its first and legitimate signification, according to Webster, is "conformable to a rule'' agreeable to an established rule, law, or principle, to a prescribed mode, or according to established, customary forms."

Regular- Conformable to rule; periodical; recurring or repeated at fixed times or uniform intervals; properly constituted; normal; marked by steadiness or uniformity of action, procedure or occurrence. Regular services- The expression ''regular forces'' mean officers and soldiers who by their commission, terms of enlistment, or otherwise are liable to render continuously for a term military service to His Majesty in every part of the world or in any specified part of the world. R. v. Governor of Wormwood Scrubbs Prison (1948) 1 All ER 438 . (Army Act. Section. 190(8))

From a bare reading of the dictionary meaning of aforesaid expressions, it appears that expression ''regular'' has been assigned various meanings, therefore, it is very difficult to find out appropriate meaning of the expressions ''regular service'' from dictionary meaning so as to enable the court to come to a definite conclusion. The proper course in such cases is to search out and follow the true intent of the legislature and to adopt that sense of the word which harmonises best with the context and advance the object of the legislature. While determining as to the meaning of particular word in a particular statute it is, therefore, permissible to consider two aspects; viz (I) the external evidence derived from the circumstances such as previous legislation and decided cases and (II) internal evidence derived from the statute itself.

In this connection, it is necessary to point out that in case, the rule making authority would have intended to prescribe completion of merely five years continuous service, which may legitimately include adhoc services also, there would have been no occasion to use the expression ''regular '' as adjective before the word ''service'' used in the said rules, therefore, the expression ''regular'' must have its significance under the rule in question and the words used in the statute cannot be treated to surplus and superfluous without any meaning assigned to it. It is also well settled rule of construction of statute that unless it is unavoidable a construction renders a provision superfluous must be rejected. In Polestar Electronic (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax and Another, Hon''ble Apex Court has held that a statutory enactment must ordinarily be construed according to plain and natural meaning of its language and no words should be added, altered or modified unless it is plainly necessary to do so in order to prevent a provision from being unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or totally irreconcilable with rest of the statute. Thus, rule of literal construction is firmly established and it has received judicial recognition in numerous cases. Therefore, in view of such settled legal position, I am of considered opinion that the expression ''regular service'' must be given different meaning from mere continuous uninterrupted service. It should not be equated with the continuous service. Further the expression ''regular service'' should also not be equated with the services rendered by adhoc appointee as in that event of the matter, there would have been no occasion for the rule making authority to use the expression ''regular service'' instead of merely using the expression ''continuous service'' as used in the earlier Rules indicated herein before. This view does neither lead to any anomalous result nor lead to any absurdity and also finds support from the decision rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court in Haryana Veterinary and A.H.T.S. Association''s case (supra) and Gurdeep Kumar Uppal''s case (supra), therefore, I am unable to understand how the interpretation which was given to the Rule-9 of 1983 and Rule 14 of 1995 Rules shall also be given to the Rule 14(1) of 1998 Rules when the expressions employed under these Rules are substantially and qualitatively different from each other.

In my considered opinion the observation made by this Court in aforesaid case that ad hoc services shall be treated to be as regular service runs counter to the observation made by Hon''ble Apex Court in Baleshwar Das''s case (supra), Haryana Veterinary and A.H.T.S. Association''s case (supra) and Gurdeep Kumar Uppal''s case (supra), therefore, cannot be held to be binding upon this Court because of the simple reason that the decision has been rendered in ignorance of binding precedent and law declared by Hon''ble Apex Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India in aforesaid cases. In such a situation, the aforesaid decision of this Court has to be held, rendered in per curiam and has no effect of binding precedent upon this Court. In this case, the court has placed reliance upon Nand Kishore''s case (supra) in respect of which, I have already held that the aforesaid decision did not lay down law on the question in issue and should be understood in context of the facts of the aforesaid case. Another case upon which reliance was placed was the case of Smt. Suman Bhatnagar, wherein the observation that continuous services rendered by ad hoc teacher has to be treated as regular services is also contrary to the dictum of Hon''ble Apex Court. Therefore, in my opinion the aforesaid decision also has to be held per incuriam, and have no effect of binding precedent. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, with due respect to the Hon''ble Judge, I am not persuaded to take the same view as taken by Hon''ble Single Judge in Karishna Pal''s case referred hereinbefore.

Thus, aforesaid discussion leaves no room for doubt to hold that the services rendered by the petitioner on ad hoc basis from the date of his joining as L.T. grade teacher w.e.f. 3.11.1992 till his regularisation on 18.8.1999 cannot be taken into account for computing his 5 years continuous regular service for the purposes of Rule 14(1) of 1998 Rules. It is only on or after 18.8.1999, on his regularisation on the post of L.T. grade teacher his services can be counted for continuous regular service to be considered for his promotion on the post of Lecturer under existing Rule 14(1) of 1998 Rules. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner was not eligible to be considered for promotion either on the date of occurrence of vacancy of English Lecturer on 30.6.1998 or on the first day of year of recruitment i.e. on 1.7.1997 on account of occurrence of vacancy on 30.6.1998 or on the first day of subsequent year of recruitment i.e. 1st July 1998 and thereafter till completion of 5 years continuous regular service subsequent to his regularisation. It is not in dispute that till he completes 5 years continuous regular service, 50% quota of promotion on the post of lecturer was already filled in the institution. Therefore, on this count also the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

The judgment in the case of Smt. Suman Bhatnagar has not taken note of the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. ATH and association whereas in the case of State of Punjab and Another Vs. Ashwani Kumar and Others, has taken note of the aforesaid judgment and held as follows: Paragraphs 2 to 6 are being extracted:

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the ad-hoc services of the respondents were to be counted for the purpose of seniority. Reliance was placed on certain other orders of the High Courts passed earlier. It is stated by learned Counsel for the appellants that this Court had occasion to deal with the appeals filed by the State questioning correctness of the judgments on which reliance has been placed by the High Court. Respondents were initially appointed during the period 1978 to 1987 as Clerks on ad-hoc basis and were regularized between the period from 1980 to 1990. Respondents submitted representations claiming the benefit of their ad-hoc services relying on the judgment to which reference has been made by the High Court in the impugned judgment. Prayer was to the effect that the ad-hoc service was to be counted for all intents and purposes including seniority.

The main question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the period of ad-hoc services rendered by the respondents is to be included for calculating the seniority. This question was considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Haryana Vs. Haryana Veternaty and A.H.T.S. Asson. and Another, wherein this Court took the view that for calculating 8/18 years service required for giving higher scale of pay and for determination of seniority only regular service rendered by the employee is to be counted and not ad-hoc service.

Learned Counsel for the respondents strenuously contended that the respondents who are Clerks serving under the State of Punjab are governed by a set of Rules and circulars different from those which were considered in the decided case and, therefore, the ratio in that case will not be applicable in these cases. We have carefully considered the said contention. We have also considered the Government Letter No. 4/8/85-3PPI/4408 dated 13.3.1996 containing the policy instructions. On a plain reading of the letter, it is clear that the instructions contained therein were based on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court taking the view that ad-hoc service should be taken into account for the purpose. This letter in our view can no longer form the basis of the contention in view of the recent decision by this Court in State of Hayana v. Haryana Veterinary and AHTS Association and Anr. (supra). Undisputedly, the respondents at the time of their appointment were governed by the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of service) Rules, 1994. In Rule 8 of the said Rules it is provided that the seniority of the persons appointed on purely provisional basis or on ad-hoc basis shall be determined as and when they are regularly appointed keeping in view the date of such regular appointment. Further, in the orders appointing the respondents on ad-hoc basis, it was specifically stated that they will be governed by the aforementioned Rules. It was further stated in paragraph III of the appointment letter that the appointees'' seniority will be determined only by merit in which he or she is placed by Punjab Public Service Commission. Thus it is clear that only regular service is to be counted towards seniority.

We do not feel it necessary to delve further into merits of the case in view of the decision of this Court in State of Hayana v. Haryana Veterinary and AHTS Association and Anr. (supra). We are satisfied that the ratio in that case applies to the case in hand. The resultant position that emerges is that the judgment/order passed by the High Court holding that ad- hoc service is to be included in calculating the period of service for giving the higher scale of pay is unsustainable and has to be vacated. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment/order of the High Court under challenge is set aside.

On the dictum of Hon''ble Apex Court, the ad-hoc service rendered cannot be kept at par with regular service and benefit of the same cannot be extended for computing five years continuous regular service.

Recently this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56126 of 2010 Arvind Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 14.09.2010 took view to the similar effect as has been taken wherein Subject Experts who were regularized u/s 21E of U.P. Act No. V of 1982 have been claiming that they have been performing and discharging duties as Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade under the Scheme dated 11.10.1999 and the fact of the matter is that they were Assistant Teacher and as such service rendered as Subject Experts cannot be ignored. This Court took the view that services rendered as Subject Experts cannot be kept at par with Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade and services rendered Subject Experts cannot be clubbed and for computation of regular continuous service, from the date when incumbent has been regularized and absorbed same has to be computed. Against the said judgment and order dated 14.09.2010 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56126 of 2010, Special Appeal No. 1691 of 2010 Arvind Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and Ors. has been filed and Special Appeal Bench has held as follows:

The same requires regular continuous service as a sine-qua-non in the feeder cadre to enable a candidate to claim promotion. The candidate would be eligible only if he has rendered regular continuous service in the cadre as a regular LT grade teacher and not as a subject expert teacher. It is only from the date of his absorption u/s 21E that such a teacher gets the status of a regular appointment and the continuity in service has to be seen thereafter for the purpose of promotion.

On the parameter as set out, once adhoc service rendered cannot be kept at par with regular service then in such a situation and in this background as the first day of year of recruitment in the present case is 01.07.1998 and on 01.07.1998, petitioner has not at all completed five years regular continuous service, w.e.f. 07.08.1993 as such Regional Joint Director of Education has not committed any error in taking such view that petitioner is intelligible to be considered for promotion in term of Rule 14 of 1998 Rules.

Sri P.C. Mishra has tried to contend before this Court that Regional Joint Director of Education has no authority to straight away pass order of promotion and here Regional Joint Director of Education has by passed the authority of the selection committee constituted u/s 12 of the U.P. Act No. V of 1982. This Court on the earlier occasion had asked Regional Joint Director of Education to consider the matter and the Regional Joint Director of Education under the scheme of thing provided for was obliged to consider the case of each candidates on the basis of record under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 and thereafter Regional Joint Director of Education was obliged to place the entire papers before the Selection Committee under Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of U.P. Act No. V of 1982. In the present case Regional Joint Director of Education has considered the case of the candidates on the basis of record referred to in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 and the matter of promotion has to be considered thereafter by the selection committee constituted of under Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of U.P. Act No. V of 1982. In this background in stead of asking District Inspector of School and Managing Committee to undertake promotional exercise, the Regional Joint Director of Education was obliged to place matter before the Selection Committee constituted u/s 12 of U.P. Act No. V of 1982. In such a situation Sri P.C. Mishra Advocate appears to be right that papers have to be placed before the Selection Committee constituted u/s 12 of U.P. Act No. V of 1982 for consideration of the matter in respect of promotion on the basis of records placed by the Regional Joint Director of Education. Promotional exercise by the Managing Committee shall be undertaken only after orders are passed by the Selection Committee constituted u/s 12 of U.P. Act No. V of 1982. As far as petitioner is concerned, as this much is clear that he lacks minimum eligibility criteria, as such qua his promotion no relief can be accorded.

Consequently, present writ petition as it has been framed and drawn is accordingly dismissed.