JUDGMENT R.K. Agrawal, J.
1. Heard Shri Prakash Padia learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shirish Chandra learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2.
2. There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in B.T.C. Grade on 8.5.1981 which was approved on 27.4.1981 whereafter she has been working since then. She claims promotion to C.T. Grade as per Regulation 7(2) contained in Chapter II of the Regulation framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) prior to its deletion on 19.8.1992 and thereafter to L.T. Grade in terms of Government Order dated 30.11.1989 2.10.1989 (hereinafter referred to as the G.O.). The qualification of the petitioner is M.A., B.Ed.
3. Regulation 7(2) of Regulations framed under Chapter II of the Act has been deleted w.e.f., 19.8.1992. The question is as to whether a person who has become entitled for being promoted to C.T. Grade on fulfillment of the conditions prescribed therein, prior to its deletion can be denied the promotion on the said date or not came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Smt. Aruna Ghosh v. Stale of U.P. and Ors., (.1995) 2 UPLBEC 763, wherein this Court has held that the omission of the provisions of Regulation 7(2) of Chapter-II of the Regulation made under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 would not affect the right already acquired by the petitioner as the omission of Regulation 7(2) cannot be given retrospective effect. The right already acquired under the said provision as it stood before its omission w.e.f.. 19 8.1992 will not be affected at all: Further in the case of Smt. Samantika Chatterjee v. Regional Inspectress of Girl's Schools, Allahabad and Ors., (1990) 1 UPLBEC 239; This Court has held that the provisions of Regulation 7(2) of Chapter-II of the Regulation framed under the U.,P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, is also applicable to a case of teachers working in B.T.C. grade in a primary Section attached to an Intermediate College. These decisions have been recently followed in the case of Smt. Sheela Arvind and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2001(4) E.S.C. 1905 : (2002) 1 UPLBEC 743. The learned Standing Counsel could not point any distinction in these decisions. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions it is held that the petitioner became entitled to be promoted in C.T. Grade on completion of five years of service in B.T.C. Grade and thereafter became entitled to be promoted L.T. Grade after competition of services in C.T. Grade, in accordance with the aforesaid G.O. The respondents No. 1 is direct to give notional promotion to the petitioner from B.T.C. Grade to C.T. Grade on completion of five years and thereafter to promote her in L.T. Grade in Terms of G.O. mentioned above the petitioner is also entitled for consequential benefits viz. arrears of salary etc.
4. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.