JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the order dated 19.2.1991 passed by the Director of Education and also for a direction to pay to the petitioner arrears of salary of Lecturer of Sociology since 1973 up-to-date.
2. The facts in brief relevant for adjudication of this case are that the petitioner was appointed as L.T. grade teacher in Shaheed Ram Chandra Inter College, Basantpur Dhusi, Tarkulwa, district Deoria on 8.7.1967. It is stated that in 1968 the subject of Sociology was for the first time recognised as a subject for Intermediate in the college, and from 1968 to 1974 one Sri S. K. Misra was teaching Sociology on ad hoc arrangement. The petitioner claims that in June, 1973, when he passed his M.A. in Sociology, the Committee of Management vide its resolution dated 15th June, 1973 resolved to fill up the post of Lecturer in Sociology by promotion under the 40% quota. A dispute between the rival contenders for the control over the Committee of Management was already pending before the Munsif, Deoria in Suit No. 1184 of 1969 which was ultimately dismissed on 4.12.1974. In between however, interim arrangements had been made for making appointment on various posts of the college. The petitioner claims that after the passing of the resolution dated 15.6.1973 by the Committee of Management, he was promoted on 23.6.1973 as Lecturer in Sociology on which post he started working since July, 1973. The papers relating to the approval of his promotion were allegedly sent by the College to the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria on 24.6.1973 and received on 25.6.1973. It is the claim of the petitioner, that on the expiry of the period of two weeks from the receipt of the said papers, as per Section 16F (2) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 approval would be deemed to have been granted by the District Inspector of Schools with effect from 22.7.1973 as the District Inspector of Schools did neither approve nor disapprove the promotion of the petitioner. The petitioner was thereafter placed under suspension on 31.8.1973 and remained as such till 6.8.1975. Admittedly, the petitioner was reinstated back in service after his suspension on the post of L.T. Grade teacher and not as a Lecturer in Sociology. In the meantime the post of Lecturer was advertised on 12.8.1974 on which post, after due selection, respondent No. 5 R. N. Tiwari was given appointment. Undisputedly, respondent No. 5 was given appointment after approval had been granted by the competent authority on 12.3.1975 and he has been paid salary as Lecturer since then. After the passing of the order dated 6.8,1975 revoking the suspension of the petitioner (as it had not been approved under the provisions of the Act), the petitioner was ultimately reinstated as L.T. grade teacher only in August, 1977 and not as a Lecturer. The petitioner thereafter filed representations before the education authorities with regard to his grievance that he may be treated as Lecturer, but no positive orders had been passed in his favour, Ultimately, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 12998 of 1981 with the prayer that he may be treated as Lecturer and be paid salary accordingly. The said writ petition was dismissed on 19.8.1982 with the following order :
"The petitioner wants to withdraw his petition, allowed and the petition is dismissed as not pressed."
3. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 19.2.1991, the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Lecturer of Sociology was rejected as also his objection regarding the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Lecturer of Sociology.
4. I have heard Sri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel appearing for the State respondents, and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Sri R.S. Mishra appearing for contesting respondent No. 5, and also perused the record including the impugned order.
5. The appointment letter alleged to be issued in favour of the petitioner has not been filed along with the writ petition. There is no approval granted to the alleged appointment/promotion of the petitioner as Lecturer and the petitioner is only claiming that his appointment shall be deemed to have been approved under the provisions of Section 16F (2) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. According to the said provision the names of selected candidates are to be forwarded for approval to the Regional Deputy Director of Education along with the names of all other candidates who may have applied for selection. The relevant Rule 16F (2) is quoted below :
"16F. (2) The name of the selected candidate shall be forwarded for approval, in the case of a teacher, by the Principal or Headmaster to the Inspector, and, in the case of Principal or Headmaster, by the Chairman of the selection committee to the Regional Deputy Director, Education, A statement showing the names, qualifications and other particulars, as may be prescribed, of all candidates who may have applied for selection shall also be sent along with the name of the selected candidate. The Inspector or Regional Deputy Director, Education, as the case may be, shall give his decision within two weeks of the receipt of the relevant papers falling which approval shall be deemed to have been accorded."
6. The said Rule is to apply for appointments to be made after selection and not by promotion, and thus in my view the provision of deemed approval of the Inspector or the Regional Deputy Director of Education after two weeks of the receipt of the relevant papers shall not apply in the case of the petitioner. Even otherwise it is the categorical finding of fact by the Additional Director of Education (Madhyamik), U. P. in the impugned order dated 19.2.1991 that there is no proof or positive findings of fact that the papers regarding the promotion of the petitioner as Lecturer of Sociology were ever forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools and thus even otherwise the question of deemed approval would not arise. The earlier Writ Petition No. 12998 of 1981 was admittedly dismissed as not pressed which was for similar prayer for payment of salary as Lecturer of Sociology since 1973.
7. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and on the facts of the present case, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding arrived at by the Additional Director in the impugned order, wherein it has been stated that once the petitioner had got his writ petition dismissed as hot pressed which was for similar prayer, there was no justification for the Directorate to pass any orders with regard to the promotion of the petitioner.
8. In the absence of the petitioner having been able, to establish any right on the post of Lecturer of Sociology and no appointment letter having been filed by him nor he being able to show that the post in question was meant for promotion, he cannot be given the benefit of having been promoted. Respondent No. 5 was duly appointed which was also approved by the competent authority in the year 1975 itself and he has been drawing his salary since then, and since there is only one post of Lecturer of Sociology, the petitioner does not deserve to be granted any relief in this writ petition.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.