JUDGMENT By the Court.—The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether for making promotion from Class IV to Class III post in a Government aided institution a written examination is permissible ? 2. In Mahavir Inter College, Malikpura, Ghazipur a vacancy of Class III employee occurred which was to be filled by promotion from Class IV employees. The respondent No. 5 was considered for promotion and the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur by order dated 24.1.2008 granted promotion to Raj Narain Singh Chauhan, respondent No. 5 who was recommended for promotion on the basis of some written test conducted by the selection committee. 3. The approval granted to the promotion of respondent No. 5 Raj Narain Singh Chauhan was challenged by the appellants by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37763 of 2008 on the ground that no written test was permissible for promotion from Class IV post to Class III post and the appellants possessed minimum educational qualification of High School prescribed for promotion but their claim for promotion on Class III post was not considered by the selection committee. The writ petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed by the learned single Judge on 30.7.2008 on the ground of laches. 4. We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Siddhartha Khare, for the appellants and Sri P.N. Saxena, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri A.K. Malviya for respondent No. 5 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we have taken up this appeal as well as the writ petition for final disposal. 5. Chapter III Regulation 2 of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 provides for appointment and promotion of Class III and Class IV employees. It lays down that the minimum educational qualification of clerks and Class IV employees would be same as is applicable to the employees of Government higher secondary institutions. 5. Chapter III Regulation 2 of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 provides for appointment and promotion of Class III and Class IV employees. It lays down that the minimum educational qualification of clerks and Class IV employees would be same as is applicable to the employees of Government higher secondary institutions. Regulation 2 of Chapter III of the Regulations is quoted below : “2 (1) fdlh laLFkk esa fu;qfDr gsrq fyfid ,oa prqFkZ oxhZ; deZpkfj;ksa dh U;wUkre ‘kSf{kd ;ksX;rk ogh gksxh tks jktdh; mPprj ek/;fed fo~|ky;ksa ds led{kh; deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, le;≤ ij fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gksA (2) iz/kku fyfid ,oa fyfid Js.kh ds Lohd`r inksa dh dqy la[;k dk 50 izfr’kr laLFkk esa dk;Zjr fyfidksa ,oa prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkfj;ksa esa ls inksUufr }kjk Hkjk tk;sxk ;fn deZpkjh in gsrq fu/kkZfjr vgZrk j[krk gks rFkk og vkxs in ij 5 o"kZ dh vfojy ekSfyd lsok dj pqdk gks rFkk mudk lsok vfHkys[k vPNk gks inksUufr vuqi;qDr dks NksMdj T;s"Brk ds vk/kkj ij dh tk;sxhA" 6. The aforesaid rule does not lay down any written test for the purposes of promotion from Class IV posts to Class III posts. Subordinate Offices Ministerial Employees Service (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985 are equivalent rules which are applicable to Government educational institutions. Rule 6 of the 1985 Rules clearly provides that 15% of the vacancies would be filled in pursuance to the Government orders issued from time to time by promotion of group D employees to group C. Group D is equivalent to Class IV post of the educational institutions. 7. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the appellants have passed High School examination. From the list filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, it is apparent that large number of candidates who are working on Class IV post in the institution and who have passed High School Examinations were eligible for promotion, but they could not be considered for promotion along with respondent No. 5 as the selection committee conducted a written test which was not provided under the rules. As per Rule 2, promotions are to be made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit and not through a written test from amongst eligible Class IV employees working in the institution. As per Rule 2, promotions are to be made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit and not through a written test from amongst eligible Class IV employees working in the institution. Subordinate Offices Ministerial Employees Service (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985 do not provide for any written examination for promotion, therefore, selection of respondent No. 5 was vitiated being in contravention of rules. Moreover, the learned single Judge committed error in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches which has been fully explained by the appellants in paragraph 6 of the appeal. Had an opportunity been given by the learned single Judge to the petitioners in the writ petition, they would have explained the laches. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned selection made by respondents and the approval granted by the District Inspector of Schools dated 24.1.2008 is wholly illegal and cannot be maintained. 9. In the result, this special appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of learned single Judge dated 30.7.2008 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37763 of 2008 is set aside. The order dated 24.1.2008 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, is quashed. Respondent No. 4 is directed to hold a fresh selection for filling the vacancies of Class III posts by promotion of Class IV employees, in accordance with law. ————