JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri L.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Santosh Kumar Dubey and Kripa Shankar Tripathi, Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, Vatatmaj Kumar Mishra, in Writ Petition No. 36245 of 2004, Sri P.S. Baghel, learned senior Advocate for petitioner, Mohan Ji Mishra, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advoacte assisted by Sri L.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, Kripa Shankar Tripathi in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32071 of 2005, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri L.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Kripa Shankar Tripathi, Sri P.S. Baghel, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No. 5, Bhanu Prasad Tiwari, Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, Vatatmaj Kumar Mishra, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24197 of 2006, Sri Krishnaji Khare learned counsel for the petitioner, Bhanu Prasad Tiwari, Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 6, Kripa Shankar Tripathi in writ petition No. 29239 of 2009 and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents in all the writ petitions. 2. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36245 of 2004 has been filed by two petitioners,namely, Santosh Kumar Dubey and Kripa Shanker Tripathi for quashing the order of the Regional Joint Director of Education, Allahabad dated 10th August, 2004 whereby Vatatmaj Kumar Mishra has been declared to be the senior to the petitioners. 3. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32071 of 2005 has been filed by Mohanji Mishra for for quashing the order dated 18th January, 2005 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, whereby in compliance to the order of this Court dated 2nd November, 2004 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45017 of 2004, he has rejected the claim of Mohanji Mishra for appointment on the post of officiating principal of Sarvarya Mahavidylaya Inter College, Allahabad and has approved the appointment of Kripa Shankar Tripathi as officiating principal. 4. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24197 of 2006 has been filed by Kripa Shanker Tripathi for quashing the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 7th April, 2006, whereby Vatatmaj Kumar Mishra has been appointed as officiating principal of Sarvarya Mahavidylaya Inter College, Allahabad and his signatures have also been attested, appointment of Kripa Shanker Tripathi as officiating principal has been cancelled and the order of attestation of his signatures has also been recalled. 5. 5. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29239 of 2009 has been filed by Bhanu Prasad Tiwari for quashing the order of the Regional Joint Director of Education dated 26th May, 2009, whereby Kripa Shankar Tripathi has been appointed as officiating principal, as also for quashing of the consequential order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 28th May, 2009. 6. Since the basic facts, relevant for decision of the dispute qua the aforesaid writ petitions are more or less identical, and legal aspects involved are also same, all the Writ Petitions are being decided by this common judgement. The facts on record of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36245 of 2004 are being stated for the purposes of present judgement treating the same to be the leading case. 7. Sarvarya Maha Vidyalaya Inter College, Allahabad is an aided and recognised Intermediate College. The provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as all those of U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to the Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 and U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 are fully applicable to the teachers of the said institution. 8. Petitioners before this Court, who are two in number, were initially appointed as L.T. Grade teachers. Two posts of Lecturers fell vacant in the institution within 50% quota reserved for promotion. On the relevant date provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Commission (now Board) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 1995’) were applicable. The Committee of Management vide resolution dated 17th July, 1997 forwarded the names of the petitioners for promotion on the post of Lecturer to the Commission (now Board). Under Rule-14 of Rules, 1995, a time frame has been fixed for promotion being considered by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Commission (now Board) and for appropriate orders being communicated within the time specified with a further obligation upon the Committee of Management to offer appointment. Before the proceedings for promotion as aforesaid could be completed, U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board’s Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 1998’) were enforced. The power to grant approval to the promotion was conferred upon the Regional Level Committee in place of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Commission (now Board). Before the proceedings for promotion as aforesaid could be completed, U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board’s Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 1998’) were enforced. The power to grant approval to the promotion was conferred upon the Regional Level Committee in place of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Commission (now Board). The District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 6th August, 1998 after referring to the changed legal position granted ad hoc approval to the promotion of aforesaid two petitioners on the post of Lecturers. The Regional Level Committee ultimately vide order 27th January, 1999 granted approval to the promotion of the petitioners w.e.f. 13th July, 1999. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as ad hoc principal of the institution on 21st September, 2002 on the basis of seniority list published on 11th December, 2002. 9. Respondent No. 5, Vatatmaj Kumar Mishra, was appointed on the recommendation of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Commission (Board) in Rakhatriya Intermediate College, Sujanganj, Jaunpur. On his application he was transferred and appointed in Sarvarya Mahavidylaya Inter College, Allahabad on 24th July, 1998. 10. There is dispute of inter se seniority between the petitioners and respondent No. 5. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the vacancies on the post of Lecturer (Civics) and Lecturer (Hindi), which were caused in the institution, were within the quota prescribed for promotion and therefore, the Committee of Management as early as on 17th July, 1997 passed a resolution for promotion of the petitioners on substantive basis. Delay in approval of such appointment of the petitioners has been caused only because of the lapse on the part of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Commission (Board) and subsequently because of delay on the part of the Regional Level Committee. It is further contended that there is no dispute that the petitioners have been granted salary as Lecturers with effect from the date of the resolution dated 17th July, 1997. Their appointment was granted ad hoc financial approval by the District Inspector of Schools pending approval of the resolution for regular promotion by the competent authority, which was ultimately granted by the Regional Level Committee as per the letter of the Regional Joint Director of Education dated 27th January, 1999, a copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The order records the date of selection as 13th July, 1998. The order records the date of selection as 13th July, 1998. He submits that grant of such approval would relate back to the date of promotion of the petitioner i.e. 17th July, 1997 and in no case services rendered by the petitioner between 17th July, 1997 to 13th July, 1998/27th January, 1999 i.e. the date of approval of their regular promotion can be ignored for the purposes of determining their seniority. In any case, petitioners having been selected by the Selection Committee on 13th July, 1998 have necessarily to be treated as substantively appointed from the said date. It is contended that respondent No. 5 having been transferred in the petitioners’ institution, where he joined on 24th July, 1998 has to be placed below the petitioners in the Lecturer’s Grade in view of Regulation-61 of Chapter-III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 12. The contention so raised on behalf of the petitioners is opposed by Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and he contends that since the petitioners were granted promotion after selection by the Regional Level Committee on 27th January, 1999, they are liable to be treated as junior to respondent No. 5. It is stated that the Regulation 61 (1) (kha) of Chapter-III of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 only provides that the transferred teacher shall be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of persons working in the same cadre (in the facts of the present case, in the cadre of Lecturer). It is submitted that since the respondent No. 5 had joined the institution prior in point of time, vis-a-vis the order of appointment after the Regional Level Committee selected the petitioners for promotion, he is liable to be treated as senior. Reference has been made to Rule-14 of Rules, 1998 and Appendix-E & F for the purpose. It is submitted that since the respondent No. 5 had joined the institution prior in point of time, vis-a-vis the order of appointment after the Regional Level Committee selected the petitioners for promotion, he is liable to be treated as senior. Reference has been made to Rule-14 of Rules, 1998 and Appendix-E & F for the purpose. It has been vehementally contended that unless an appointment letter is issued in form as per Appendix-E after approval of the Regional Level Committee, teacher concerned cannot be said to be promoted on substantive basis as Lecturer and therefore, in view of Regulation 3 (1) of Chapter-II of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 , petitioners cannot claim to have been substantively appointed in Lecturers grade prior 1999 nor they can claim seniority in the said Lecturers grade from any date prior to it. 13. From the facts as have been noticed herein above, this Court finds that following facts are undisputed : (a) the vacancies on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) and Lecturer (Civics) were within 50% quota provided for promotion, (b) the Committee of Management infact passed resolution for promotion of the petitioners on 17th July, 1997 and forwarded the same to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Commission (Board) with reference to Rule-14 of Rules, 1995, which were applicable on the relevant date. 14. Under Rule-14 of Rules, 1995 a time schedule is prescribed for matter being considered for promotion and being granted to the teachers concerned, it reads as follows : “14. Procedure for recruitment by promotion.—(1) Where any vacancy is to be filled by promotion all teachers working in trained graduates (L.T.) grade or Certificate of Teaching (C.T.) grade, if any, who possess the qualifications prescribed for the post and have completed five years continuous service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment shall be considered for promotion to the lecturers grade or the trained graduates (L.T.) grade, as the case may be, without their having applied for the same. ............................ 2. The criterion for promotion shall be seniority subject to the rejection of unfit. 3. ............................ 2. The criterion for promotion shall be seniority subject to the rejection of unfit. 3. The Management shall prepare a list of teachers referred to in sub-rule (1), and forward it to the Commission through the Inspector with a copy of seniority list, service records, including the character rolls, and a statement in the proforma given in Appendix “A”. 4. Within three weeks of the receipt of the list from the management under sub-rule (3), the Inspector shall verify the facts from the record of his office and forward the list to the Commission. 5. The Commission shall consider the cases of the candidates on the basis of the records referred to in sub-rule (3) and may call such additional information as it may consider necessary. The Commission shall forward the panel of selected candidates within one month to the Inspector with a copy thereof to the Deputy Director. 6. Within ten days of the receipt of the panel from the Commission under sub-rule (5), the Inspector shall send the name of the selected candidate tot he management of the institution which was notified the vacancy and the management shall accordingly on authorization under its resolution issue the appointment order in proforma given in Appendix ‘E’ to the such candidate.” 15. The name of the candidates entitled to be considered for promotion is to be forwarded along with service records and a copy of seniority list to the Commission (Board) through the District Inspector of Schools. The Inspector has to verify the facts and within three weeks transmit the same to the Commission (Board). The Commission (Board) after calling for such information, as may be required, forward the panel of the selected candidates within one month to the Inspector. Within ten days of the receipt of the panel from the Commission (Board) the Inspector is to forward the name of the selected candidate to the Management for offering appointment to the incumbent concerned by way of promotion in the prescribed proforma as given in Appendix ‘E’. 16. Thus, it would be apparently clear that the procedure laid down under Rule-14 should have been normally completed by the District Inspector of Schools, Commission (Board) and Management of the institution within two and half months from the date the resolution was passed i.e. 17th July, 1997. 16. Thus, it would be apparently clear that the procedure laid down under Rule-14 should have been normally completed by the District Inspector of Schools, Commission (Board) and Management of the institution within two and half months from the date the resolution was passed i.e. 17th July, 1997. The Commission (Board) and the authorities have delayed the matter for the reasons best known to them. In between Rules, 1998 were enforced. Under Rule-14 of Rules, 1998, a Regional Level Committee has been constituted for consideration of the matter of promotion and time frame which was earlier fixed for the Commission (Board) has been provided for the matter being reported to the Regional Joint Director of Education and the Regional Joint Director of Education inturn is required to place the papers before the Selection Committee referable to Section 12 (1) within one month and the select panel is to be forwarded within one month to the Inspector concerned and within ten days of the receipt of the select panel, the Inspector is required to forward the name of the selected candidate to the Management. The Management has to issue appointment in proforma Appendix- F. 17. It will not be out of place to point out that under Rule-14 of Rules, 1995 as well as under Rule-14 of Rules, 1998, criteria for promotion is seniority subject to rejection of unfit. It is nobody’s case that petitioners are unfit for promotion nor their seniority is in dispute. 18. What has been argued before this Court is that, because the State respondents/ Commission had not been able to perform their part of the statutory obligation within time prescribed under Rule-14, teachers concerned, who were eligible for promotion from day one, must be made to suffer and they cannot be permitted to claim seniority from any day prior to the date of issuance of the appointment letter in proforma ‘E’/’F’ after selection by the Regional Level Committee. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the respondents on the use of word “that under Appendix ‘E’/’F’ the incumbent is informed of his being appointed on probation of one year” and therefore it has been contended with all vehemence at command that it is only on the date of issuance of the letter in Appendix ‘E’/’F’ that the petitioners can be deemed to have been appointed on substantive basis. 19. 19. Reliance has been placed upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudama Singh v. Nath Saran Singh and others, AIR 1988 SC 84 by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. 20. So far as the judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 in the case of Sudama Singh (supra) is concerned, this Court may only record that in the case of Sudama Singh (supra), before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, regular promotion was conferred upon the teacher concerned because of introduction of Section-16GG to the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which was enforced on 21st April, 1977, wherein teachers working on ad hoc basis between 18th August, 1975 and 30th September, 1976 were regularized from the date of the commencement of Section. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the opinion of the Court will have no application in the facts of the case, inasmuch as, entitlement of the petitioners for regular promotion under resolution dated 17th July, 1997 has not been disputed by any one. Their seniority and they being possessed of qualification prescribed for such promotion is also not disputed. In the facts of the present case, delay has been caused qua consideration of their regular promotion first by the Commission (Board) and then by the Regional Level Committee. After delaying when the matter was considered petitioners were found to be eligible for such promotion and infact have been approved for such promotion as per the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 17th July, 1997. 21. Constitution Bench judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1990 SC 1607 has considered as to whether ad hoc service followed by regular service could be counted for the purposes of seniority and in this context the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 44 as follows : “(A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. (B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.” Under category (A) it has been expressly provided that where the initial appointment is according to rule as ad hoc followed by confirmation, the period of officiation on such post has to be counted for the purpose of seniority. 22. We are concerned with category ‘A’ in the facts of the present case and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the scope of category ‘B’ as explained in subsequent judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 23. In P.N. Premchandran v. State of Kerala and others, (2004) 1 SCC 245 , the Apex Court held that if there is a lapse on the part of the employer authority in making the regular promotions, though ad hoc promotion had been given earlier, the benefit of officiating period is to be given by making the promotions with a back date unless the officer can be blamed for the delay. 24. It is no doubt true that under Regulation-3 of Chapter-III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the seniority is to be determined on the basis of the date of substantive appointment and inter se seniority of teachers is to be determined accordingly. 25. For our purposes relevant portion of Regulation 3 of Chapter-II reads as follows : “3. The Committee of Management of every institution shall cause a seniority list of teachers to be prepared in accordance with the following provisions— (a) The seniority list shall be prepared separately for each grade of teachers whether permanent or temporary, on any substantive post; (b) Seniority of teachers in a grade shall be determined on the basis of their substantive appointment in that grade. If two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age; ......................” 26. If two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age; ......................” 26. From a bare reading of aforesaid regulations, it is apparently clear that seniority list is to be prepared grade-wise of teachers whether permanent or temporary, working against any substantive post. Inter se seniority of teachers in same grade has to be determined from the date of substantive appointment. From a reading of Regulation 3 (a) with Rule 3 (b) it shall be amply clear that nature of appointment whether temporary or permanent is not the guiding factor for a place being assigned seniority in the Grade. Guiding Factor is that the post should be substantive. From reading of Regulation 3 (b), it is clear that irrespective of the nature of appointment whether permanent or temporary, if it is substantive, then such date of appointment is to be taken as the crucial date for determination of seniority in the grade. Substantive appointment has not been defined under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or Regulations framed thereunder or Rules of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Commission. However, it has a definite connotation in service jurisprudence. Reference Baleshwar Das and others etc. v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1981 SC 41 , Paragraph-32, wherein it has been held as follows : “What in the context, is a substantive capacity vis-a-vis an appointment to a post? In our view, the emphasis imported by the adjective “substantive” is that a thing is substantive if it is “an essential part or consistent or relating to what is essential”. (Balck’s Legal Dictionary, 4th Edn. p. 1597.) We may describe a capacity as substantive if it has “independent existence” or is of “considerable amount or quantity”. What is independent in a substantial measure may reasonably be described as substantive.” 27. (Balck’s Legal Dictionary, 4th Edn. p. 1597.) We may describe a capacity as substantive if it has “independent existence” or is of “considerable amount or quantity”. What is independent in a substantial measure may reasonably be described as substantive.” 27. In view of the aforesaid, this Court has no hesitation to hold that if a recommendation is made by the Committee of Management for regular promotion of a teacher against a post within the promotion quota on the principle of seniority subject to rejection of unfit and such promotion recommended by the Committee of Management is ultimately approved by the competent authority, and in between approval is granted by the District Inspector of Schools to promotion on ad hoc basis pending regular approval by the Commission (Board) or Regional Level Committee concerned, then such promotion, for all practical purposes, has to be treated as substantive in nature, subject however, to the final approval of the promotion by the Competent Authority. 28. I am of the considered opinion that petitioners, who were entitled to be promoted in the year 1997 and infact were recommended for the same by the Committee of Management cannot be denied the benefit of the length of service rendered between 1997 to 1999 only because statutory authorities have taken two years time to approve/select the petitioners for such promotion. This Court may record that it is for the purpose that the teachers may not suffer for the inaction of the authorities, a time frame has been prescribed both under Rule-14 of Rules, 1995 and Rule-14, Rules, 1998. 29. In any view of the matter having regard to the order of the Regional Joint Director of Education dated 27th January, 1999 referred to above, which specifically mentions the date of selection by the Regional Level Committee qua promotion of the petitioners as 13th July, 1998, this Court sees absolutely no reasons as to why said date be not taken as the date of substantive date of promotion of the petitioners, inasmuch as all other acts, which are required to be performed thereafter, namely, issuance of the appointment letter etc. are ministerial acts and for the delay in execution of the ministerial acts, candidate cannot suffer specifically when ad hoc promotion has already been granted to the promotion by the District Inspector of Schools strictly in accordance with Rule-15 of Rules, 1998. 30. are ministerial acts and for the delay in execution of the ministerial acts, candidate cannot suffer specifically when ad hoc promotion has already been granted to the promotion by the District Inspector of Schools strictly in accordance with Rule-15 of Rules, 1998. 30. With reference to the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 13th March, 1999 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), it will be seen that the date of appointment and transfer of respondent No. 5 is subsequent to 13th July, 1998 to be precised 24th July, 1998 and therefore, he is to be placed below the petitioners in the seniority list in Lecturers grade, in view of Regulation-61 of Chapter-III of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 31. Judged with reference to the date of resolution of the Committee of Management, date of ad hoc promotion to the appointment of the petitioners under order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 6th August, 1998 and ultimately the date on which Selection Committee is stated to have selected the petitioners i.e. 13th July, 1998, petitioners were working in Lecturers grade on substantive basis prior to the date of transfer of respondent No. 5 and therefore, have to be held senior to said respondent No. 5. It is held accordingly. So far as inter se seniority between Santosh Kumar Dubey and Kripa Shankar Tripathi is concerned, both of them have been promoted on the same date as Lecturers, this seniority in L.T. Grade shall therefore, continue to hold good in view of Regulation 3 of Chapter-II of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 32. Mohanji Mishra claims to be appointed as C.T. Grade teacher on 1st January, 1968 and promoted as L.T. Grade teacher on 1st November, 1973. he further claims to have been granted Lecturer’s grade w.e.f. 1st January, 1986. According to Mohanji Mishra, under Government Order dated 25th October, 2000, a teacher on completing ten years of continuous service becomes entitled for grant of designation as Lecturer and therefore, he is deemed to have been designated as lecturer from 25th October, 2000. he further claims to have been granted Lecturer’s grade w.e.f. 1st January, 1986. According to Mohanji Mishra, under Government Order dated 25th October, 2000, a teacher on completing ten years of continuous service becomes entitled for grant of designation as Lecturer and therefore, he is deemed to have been designated as lecturer from 25th October, 2000. Since this Court has already held that Santosh Kumar Dubey and Kripa Shankar Tripathi have been promoted on substantive basis from 6th August, 1998 and in any case from 13th July, 1998 as Lecturers in the institution, they are senior to Mohanji Mishra, even if his case is accepted on its face value, although there is a serious doubt as to whether the Government Order dated 25th October, 2000 would apply in the case of Mohanji Mishra or not. Prayer made in the writ petition No. 32071 of 2005 on his behalf is, therefore, rejected. 33. Bhanu Prasad Tiwari claims to be appointed as C.T. Grade teacher on 16th July, 1980. He claims to have been granted promotion as L.T. Grade teacher on completing ten years of continuous service and designation under Section 33D (b) of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 from the said date. He has also placed reliance upon the Government Order dated 28th February, 1990 and Government Order dated 25th October, 2000 for the purpose that on completing ten years of continuous service as L.T. Grade teacher, he will become entitled to the Lecturer’s grade as well as designation accordingly to be précised under resolution of the Committee of Management dated 12th July, 2000. Since this Court has already held that Santosh Kumar Dubey and Kripa Shankar Tripathi have been promoted on substantive basis from 6th August, 1998 and in any case from 13th July, 1998 as Lecturers in the institution, they are to be deemed senior to Bhanu Prasad Tiwari also, though there is a serious doubt as to whether the Government Orders dated 28th February, 1990 and dated 25th October, 2000 would apply in the case of Bhanu Prasad Tiwari or not. Prayer made in the writ petition No. 29239 of 2009 on his behalf is, therefore, rejected. 34. Prayer made in the writ petition No. 29239 of 2009 on his behalf is, therefore, rejected. 34. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 36245 of 2004 and writ petition No. 24197 of 2006 are allowed and writ petition No. 32071 of 2005 and writ petition No. 29239 of 2009 are dismissed subjected to the observations made above. 35. Let the District Inspector of Schools take all appropriate action for appointment of ad hoc principal in accordance with the observations made above after determining the seniority as aforesaid within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. ————