JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vineet Saran, J.—The petitioner was initially appointed on 1.8.1967 as an Assistant Teacher in Subhash Inter College, Bhatni, District Deoria, Respondent No. 3. He was confirmed on such post on 1.8.1968. On 30.6.1984, the Principal of the institution retired and consequently the seniormost Lecturer of the institution, namely, Harihar Tiwari was appointed as adhoc Principal of the institution. As a consequence thereof, a short-term vacancy on the post of Lecturer occurred. The petitioner being the seniormost L.T. Grade teacher, was however approved for adhoc promotion against the short-term vacancy on the post of Lecturer in Civics, but was not permitted to join on such post and in the meantime a new Principal was selected by the Commission, who had joined, and pursuant thereto, said Harihar Tiwari was sent back to his original post of Lecturer. However, during this period, on 20.11.1984 a new post of Lecturer in Civics was created and sanctioned by the Director of Education. The said post was to be filled up by promotion through U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Respondent No. 1. The petitioner apprehended that even though the respondent No. 4 Ramesh Tiwari was junior to the petitioner, but because of his influence in the Committee of Management the case of the petitioner for promotion on such substantive post of Lecturer in Civics would be ignored, thus he filed several representations before the respondent authorities in support of his claim for grant of such promotion. Even then, by order dated 7.8.1989 passed by Respondent No. 1, the Respondent No. 4 Ramesh Tiwari was promoted on the post of Lecturer in Civics created by order dated 20.11.1984 passed by Director of Education. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 7.8.1989, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Lecturer in Civics with effect from October, 1984. 2. I have heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri A.K. Yadav, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 Commission; learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 2 and Sri R.S Misra for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as have perused the record. 3. During the pendency of this writ petition, the said Harihar Tiwari, Lecturer in Civics had retired and thus another vacancy arose, which was also to be filled up by promotion. 4 and 5 as have perused the record. 3. During the pendency of this writ petition, the said Harihar Tiwari, Lecturer in Civics had retired and thus another vacancy arose, which was also to be filled up by promotion. However, by order dated 21.1.1991 passed by the District Inspector of School, Deoria the said promotion was denied to the petitioner on the ground of pendency of this writ petition, and was given to the Respondent No. 5 Bhupendra Pandey, who was also junior to the petitioner. 4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there were four Assistant Teachers in Civics in the college of Respondent No. 3. The petitioner was the seniormost and the second in seniority was Respondent No. 5 Bhupendra Pandey, and then the third was Jagar Nath Tiwari, and the juniormost was Respondent No. 4 Ramesh Tiwari. It has been submitted that ignoring the claim of the petitioner, the Committee of Management recommended the name of the Respondent No. 4, who was the juniormost. Further, without giving any reasons for ignoring the case of the petitioner, who was the seniormost, the promotion of Respondent No. 4 has been approved by the Commission vide order dated 7.8.1989. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had throughout apprehended that such favour would be given to the Respondent No. 4 because he was the son of a member of the Committee of Management of the institution and for that reason he had given several representations, which had not been considered. 5. Sri R.S. Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents No. 4 and 5 has, however, submitted that Respondent No. 4 had nothing to do with his promotion and it was the Commission which had selected the respondent No. 4 and thus he was promoted in normal course. 6. Sri A.K. Yadav, learned Counsel for the Commission has submitted that the promotion of respondent No. 4 was granted after perusal of the record and the recommendations made to the Commission by the Committee of Management and the District Inspector of School. It is pertinent to note that the Commission has not filed any counter-affidavit. 6. Sri A.K. Yadav, learned Counsel for the Commission has submitted that the promotion of respondent No. 4 was granted after perusal of the record and the recommendations made to the Commission by the Committee of Management and the District Inspector of School. It is pertinent to note that the Commission has not filed any counter-affidavit. Sri Yadav has, however, not been able to justify that why the Commission ignored the claim of the petitioner without recording any reason for doing so, specially when the petitioner was the seniormost and the respondent No. 4 was the juniormost amongst the four Assistant Teachers of Civics working in the college of Respondent No. 3. 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for in this writ petition. 8. It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner was the seniormost amongst the four Assistant Teachers of Civics and that the Respondent No. 4 was the juniormost teacher. No document whatsoever has been filed either by the Committee of Management or the District Inspector of School or the Commission to show that there was any complaint with regard to the work and conduct of the petitioner as a teacher, so as to justify ignoring his claim for promotion. A counter-affidavit has been filed only by the Respondent No. 4. In Paragraph 9 of the said counter-affidavit, it has been stated that “Sri Bhupendra Pandey and Sri Jagannath Tiwari had given in writing that they were not interested to be promoted on the post in question, and in so far as the petitioner is concerned, he was found unsuitable. Therefore, the committee of management decided to promote the respondent". The said averments have been sworn by the Respondent No. 4 on the basis of personal knowledge. On the one hand learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4 has very fairly stated that the respondent No. 4 had nothing to do with the promotion and that since the Commission had recommended and approved his name, he was granted promotion. On the other hand, in the counter-affidavit, justification comes from the Respondent No. 4, on the basis of personal knowledge, stating that the petitioner was found unsuitable and that the Committee of Management decided to promote the deponent. On the other hand, in the counter-affidavit, justification comes from the Respondent No. 4, on the basis of personal knowledge, stating that the petitioner was found unsuitable and that the Committee of Management decided to promote the deponent. The said averments made in the counter-affidavit clearly justify the apprehensions made by the petitioner by way of filing representations at the time when fresh post of Lecturer was created, that the Committee of Management was making all efforts to promote the Respondent No. 4 on said post, ignoring the claim of the petitioner. It is also not understood as to how the alleged unsuitability of the petitioner for grant of promotion and the decision of Committee of Management to promote the said Respondent No. 4, was known to the Respondent No. 4 on the basis of his personal knowledge. 9. The procedure, as applicable in the present case with regard to appointment by promotion, has been laid down in Rule 9 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1983. The said Rule is being quoted below : “9. Procedure for appointment by promotion.—(1) Where any vacancy is to be filled by promotion, all teachers working in L.T. or C.T. Grade, who possess the minimum qualifications and have put in at least 5 years continuous service as teacher on the date of occurrence of vacancy shall be considered for promotion to the Lecturer or L.T. Grade, as the case may be, without their having applied for the same. Note.—For the purpose of this sub-rule, service rendered in any other recognized institution shall count 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." 10. It was incumbent on the Committee of Management to send the names of all teachers working in L.T. or C.T. grade who possessed the minimum qualifications and had put in atleast five years of continuous service as a teacher on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. All such teachers were necessarily to be considered for promotion. It is not disputed that all the four Assistant Teachers, whose names have been given in the preceding paragraph (as also in paragraph 10 of the writ petition) were qualified, and consequently the names of all the four teachers ought to have been sent. All such teachers were necessarily to be considered for promotion. It is not disputed that all the four Assistant Teachers, whose names have been given in the preceding paragraph (as also in paragraph 10 of the writ petition) were qualified, and consequently the names of all the four teachers ought to have been sent. There was no question of the Committee of Management or the District Inspector of School recommending a particular name for promotion, as the same was not required to be done under the Rules. It was for the Commission to independently consider the names of all such teachers who were qualified for such promotion. The sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 lays down the criteria for grant of promotion, which was seniority subject to rejection of unfit. Undisputedly the petitioner was the seniormost. For a moment, if the case of Respondent No. 4 (as made out in the counter-affidavit) is accepted, then Respondent No. 5 Bhupendra Pandey and Jagar Nath Tiwari who were at serial Nos. 2 and 3 could have been ignored, as it has been stated that they did not opt for such promotion, but unless the petitioner was rejected as unfit for grant of such promotion, he being the seniormost, could not have been ignored for such promotion. The Commission has not been able to justify that without recording any reason, why and how the case of the petitioner had been ignored for grant of such promotion. A perusal of the letters written by Bhupendra Pandey and Jagar Nath Tiwari (annexed along with the counter-affidavit of Respondent No. 4) go to show that they had foregone their claim in favour of Ramesh Tiwari, who was the juniormost. It is not clear that if they had to forego their claim why they chose to do so in favour of the juniormost person, as if they had known that the person senior to them was already to be ignored. This also clearly shows that the Respondent No. 4 had his influence in the Committee of Management and the assertion of the petitioner that the said Respondent No. 4 was granted promotion because of his father being a member of the Committee of Management, has force. 11. This also clearly shows that the Respondent No. 4 had his influence in the Committee of Management and the assertion of the petitioner that the said Respondent No. 4 was granted promotion because of his father being a member of the Committee of Management, has force. 11. Not only this, thereafter when a vacancy of Lecturer again arose and another occasion came for grant of promotion, the case of the petitioner had been ignored on the ground of pendency of this writ petition, even though no interim order had been passed in this writ petition. Interestingly, the Respondent No. 5 Bhupendra Pandey, who had only about a little over a year earlier foregone his claim in favour of Respondent No. 4, was now granted and has also accepted his promotion as Lecturer. However, the same is only a circumstance to show the approach of the respondents against the petitioner and since the order granting promotion to the said Respondent No. 5 is not under challenge in this writ petition, it has been mentioned only as a reference and not for the purposes of passing any order against the respondent No. 5. 12. The State spends huge amount of money for promoting education and such purpose can be achieved only if the teachers get justice from the authorities in matters of their service. It is only then that the teachers can perform their duty properly. To ensure fairness in the appointment and promotion of teachers, the Commission, Respondent No. 1, has been entrusted the job. The facts of the present case reveal that the Commission has been far from being fair towards the petitioner as it is clear that the Commission has also played in the hands of the Committee of Management and the education authorities and for no valid reason, ignored the case of the petitioner for promotion as Lecturer and without assigning any reason granted the same to a junior person (Respondent No. 4). 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view that the promotion to the post of Lecturer has been granted by order dated 7.8.1989 to the juniormost person (Respondent No. 4) ignoring the case of the petitioner who was the seniormost, without assigning any reason, in my view, the same deserves to be quashed. 14. Accordingly the order dated 7.8.1989 passed by the Respondent No. 1 is quashed. 14. Accordingly the order dated 7.8.1989 passed by the Respondent No. 1 is quashed. It is directed that the respondent-authorities shall grant promotion to the petitioner in accordance with law, from the date the Respondent No. 4 promoted and it is also provided that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. 15. This writ petition stands allowed. No order as to cost. ————