JUDGMENT Aloke Chakrabarti, J.
1. The dispute herein is relating to post of Principal in Bipin Bihari Chakravarty Inter College, Ramapura, Varanasi.
2. The case made out in the present writ petition in substance is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade on 20.7.1973 and was promoted to the post of Lecturer in Economics in the said Institution. As regards the date of effect of the said promotion, the petitioner contends that the same is effective from 1.7.1990 although such promotion was given on 18.12.1991. The respondent No. 5 was absorbed as a reserved pool teacher in the post of Lecturer in the said institution in the year, 1978. It has been contended by the petitioner that against the vacancy in the post of Principal, the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission advertised in December, 1996 and in respect thereof, only respondent No. 5 was interviewed and thus she was selected for the said post. For cancelling the said interview in respect of the post of Principal in the said institution and for issuing Interview letter to the petitioner and for other reliefs, the present writ petition was filed.
3. On 11.4.1997, a interim order was passed on the said writ petition directing that the question of seniority and appointment as Principal shall be subject to decision of this writ petition.
4. The Committee of Management of the said institution and the respondent No. 5 contested the proceeding by filing separate counter-affidavits to which rejoinder-affidavits have also been filed.
5. Heard Mr. H. P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. K. Ganguly and Mr. S. P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 as also the learned Standing Counsel.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner first contended that the respondent No. 5 having been absorbed as reserved pool teacher is not entitled to any promotion and in support of such contention, he referred to judgment in the case of Prabodh Verma v. State of U. P. and others, 1984 UPLBEC 771, decided by the Apex Court as also the provision of Section 21B and particularly the Explanation appended thereto in U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act, 1982.
7. Second contention of petitioner is that the law requires sending of name of at least two senior teachers for the purpose of consideration in respect of promotion to the post of Principal and in the present case, the name of only respondent No. 5 had been sent as another candidate Smt. Raj Kumari Keshari already communicated that she was not interested in respect of the said promotion.
8. Learned counsel for contesting respondent contended that neither the aforesaid judgment in the case of Prabodh Verma (supra), nor the said provision of law as contained in Explanation to Section 21-B of the said Act deprives the respondent No. 5 of promotion nor requirement of sending names of two senior most teachers was avoided. In support of such contention, reliance was also placed on the document at Annexure No. C.A. 9 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5, being a letter dated 12.3.1997 whereby the College authorities were required to send the names of two senior most teachers.
9. After considering the aforesaid facts and looking into the materials available on record as also the Judgment relied on by the respective parties, it appears that both the judgment in the case of Prabodh Verma (supra), and the provisions contained in Explanation to aforesaid Section 21B relates to condition at the time of first appointment of reserved pool teachers. I do not find any provision any where which forbids further promotion of reserved pool teacher. On the contrary, recognition of the reserved pool teacher by the statute itself indicates clearly that all the benefits under the said statute are to be available to such reserved pool teacher subject to any restriction prescribed in the statute Itself. In the absence of any such prescription, restricting the right of any reserved pool teacher to further promotion after passage of time, does not lend any support to such contention of the petitioner. Therefore, the first contention of the petitioner for holding the respondent No. 5 to be disentitled for promotion to the post of Principal cannot be upheld.
10. With regard to second contention of the petitioner. I find that the requisition made by the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission by its letter dated 12.3.1997 (Annexure-9 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5) clearly indicates that the name of first two senior most teachers are to be sent and even in case one of the said teachers declines such promotion, no further name could be sent by the authorities of the institution.
11. In view of aforesaid, when the names of respondent No. 5 and second senior most teacher were sent for the purpose of consideration of promotion and out of them, the second senior most teacher declined promotion, there was no irregularity on the part of the respondents for Interviewing the respondent No. 5 alone. In this respect, it is further noted that the respondent No. 5 was appointed as Lecturer in 1978 and in respect of petitioner's date of promotion to the post of Lecturer though some dispute has been raised but in any case, no claim has been made in respect of promotion of petitioner to the post of Lecturer prior to the year 1990. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner can be treated as senior to respondent No. 5 and in such circumstances, when admittedly the respondent No. 5 is senior to the petitioner and her case had been considered by the respondent Commission and was found suitable, there is no irregularity nor any deprivation of the petitioner of any valid consideration.
12. On behalf of petitioner, various judgments have been referred as decided in the cases of P. S. Mahal and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1984 SC 1291 : Narender Chadha v. Union of India and others. AIR 1986 SC 638 : Delhi W. S. and S. Disposal Committee v. R. K. Kshyap, AIR 1989 SC 278 and Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra and others. (1990) 2 SCC 715. But, in the facts of the present case and in view of discussions made herein above, I find that the aforesaid judgments do not lend any support to the contention of the petitioner.
13. In view of aforesaid, this writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.