JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Petitioner before this Court was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Smt. Shushila Devi Vanasthali Balika Inter College, Partapur, District Meerut on 1st July, 1974. On completing five years of service in terms of the Government Order applicable, she was granted L.T. grade w.e.f. 21.11.1979. In view of Section 33-D as added to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 as also in view of the amendments, which were made in the regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, a teacher drawing salary in L.T. grade is deemed to have been promoted in L.T. Grade on 1.1.1986 if he/she has completed ten years of service as such on 1.1.1986 date or from the date when he/she subsequently completes ten years of service from the date he/she was granted L.T. grade. In the facts of the present case the said period of ten years would expire on 20.11.1989 and, therefore, with effect from the said date the petitioner would be treated to have been promoted on substantive basis as L.T. grade teacher. 2. On 28th February, 1990 another Government Order was issued, which provides that teachers who have been appointed in respect of the Art subjects; namely Art, Physical Training, Language, Home Science, Shilp, Music, Tribhasha, Painting, Typing, Shorthand and Craft would become entitled for grant of Lecturer’s grade from the date they complete ten years of service in L.T. grade provided they have been teaching Classes XI and XII for these ten years. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the institution where the petitioner is working was granted recognition for Intermediate classes under a letter of the State Government dated 25.9.1983, which amongst other included the subject of Sanskrit. In pursuance thereof permission to start the classes was also granted by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Meerut Region, Meerut under letter dated 2nd November, 1983. It is stated that the petitioner has been continuously teaching the subject of Sanskrit to the students of Classes XI and XII since 1983 as there is no other teacher qualified to impart education to the students of Intermediate classes in the said subject. 4. In these set of facts it is contended that the petitioner on completing ten years of teaching the students of Intermediate classes, subsequent to her being declared as L.T. grade teacher, becomes entitled to grant of Lecturer’s grade. 4. In these set of facts it is contended that the petitioner on completing ten years of teaching the students of Intermediate classes, subsequent to her being declared as L.T. grade teacher, becomes entitled to grant of Lecturer’s grade. The representations filed by the petitioner claiming Lecturers’ grade were not being considered by the District Inspector of Schools, therefore, she approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 11024 of 2007. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.2.2007 with a direction upon the District Inspector of Schools to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. 5. In pursuance to the direction of this Court, the District Inspector of Schools decided the representation made by the petitioner and has rejected the same only on the ground that the recognition granted to the institution in respect of Intermediate examination contains a specific recital that the institution would be responsible for all the expenses required for teaching in the aforesaid Intermediate classes. Meaning thereby that recognition has been granted to the institution for Intermediate classes without any financial assistance (to be precise ‘Vitt Viheen’). In view of the aforesaid it has been held that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of Lecturers’ grade. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Government Order dated 28.2.1990 there is no such restriction as recorded by the District Inspector of Schools in the impugned order. He submits that the Government Order makes no distinction qua the grant of Lecturers’ grade to teachers, who fulfil the requirements as contained in the said Government Order, on the basis that the aided institution where the L.T. grade teacher is imparting education has subsequently been granted Vitt Viheen recognition qua Intermediate classes (i.e. XI and XII). It is contended that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has completely been lost sight of the District Inspector of Schools while passing the impugned order. 7. Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent reiterated the reasons recorded in the order of the District Inspector of Schools. However, he fairly conceded that no such distinction, as has been pointed out by the District Inspector of Schools, has been recorded in the Government Order. 7. Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent reiterated the reasons recorded in the order of the District Inspector of Schools. However, he fairly conceded that no such distinction, as has been pointed out by the District Inspector of Schools, has been recorded in the Government Order. He further submits that since the issue involved will have larger implications throughout the State of U.P., it would be appropriate that a decision may be taken by the State Government in respect of such teachers, who imparts education in Intermediate classes of an institution which is aided upto High School and the recognition granted for Intermediate classes under self-finance. It is further stated that this Court may require the State Government to examine the matter afresh in light of the facts noticed, with reference to the Government Orders so as to avoid any further complications. 8. In view of the specific language of the Government Order dated 28.2.1990 relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that there exists no distinction qua grant of Lecturer’s grade in respect of the L.T. grade teachers of aided institutions (up to High School), who impart education in subjects (mentioned in the Government Order) to Intermediate classes subsequently recognized under self-finance vis-a-vis L.T. grade teachers of the said subjects of aided institutions up to High School, which are recognized or subsequently recognized and provided aid for the Intermediate classes also. 9. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vipin Kumar v. District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar and others, (1993) 3 UPLBEC 1800 (specifically in para 9), has held as follows : “...A teacher, who is working in L.T. grade, is to be promoted to the post of lecturer’s grade in the sense that he is to be promoted to the post of lecturer in an institution. A teacher may be given lecturer’s pay scale but he may not be given the post. Unless he is given a post the mere fact that he has been given lecturer’s pay scale will not be taken as to have given him the post of lecturer unless he is duly promoted to the said post in accordance with the provisions of a Statute.” 10. In another judgment of this Court in the case of Km. Sheela Sanyal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 1995 All. In another judgment of this Court in the case of Km. Sheela Sanyal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 1995 All. L.J. 589 (specifically in Para 17) the learned Single Judge has held as follows : “17. The grant of pay scale of L.T. grade cannot itself be taken as an appointment on a substantive basis in L.T. grade. In Vipin Kumar v. District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar, (1994) 23 All LR 27, it was held that where a teacher is given a lecturer’s pay scale, will not be taken to have been given the post of lecturer unless he is duly promoted according to the Statute.” 11. Therefore, creation/availability of a post in lecturer’s grade for grant of the lecturer’s grade in terms of the Government Order is not a condition precedent, consequently, it is irrelevant as to whether the institution, which was aided and recognized up to High School level, has been granted recognition for Intermediate classes under self-finance or otherwise qua grant of Lecturers grade in terms of the Government Order dated 28.2.1990. 12. However, it is desirable that the State Government may itself examine the matter and arrive at a just and proper conclusion so that a uniform policy is made applicable on all such similarly situated teachers. 13. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to file a representation before the Secretary, Secondary Education U.P. Government (Respondent No. 1) within two weeks from today along with certified copy of this order. On such representation being made, respondent No. 1 shall consider and decide the same by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within four weeks thereafter and if necessary a uniform policy may be notified for the purpose. ————