JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows : Petitioner Ram Prakash Sharma and private respondent Raja Ram Yadav are Assistant Teachers, appointed in L.T. Grade in Jan Kalyan Inter College, Dalvali, Aligarh (hereinafter referred as the Institution). The Institution is recognized and aided under the provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The provisions of the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 and those of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection, 1982 are fully applicable to the Teachers to the said Institution. 2. One Sri Lalji Singh Verma, who was permanent Principal of the Institution retired on 30.6.1992. The Senior most Teacher, namely, Munshi Lal Verma, Lecturer in Hindi, was granted ad hoc promotion as Principal of the Institution against the vacancy so caused. Accordingly, a short term vacancy came into existence on the post of Lecturer Hindi. At the relevant point of time petitioner was senior most Teacher possessed of the prescribed qualification in the institution. He was granted ad hoc promotion on 6.7.1997 as Lecturer Hindi. The ad hoc promotion of the petitioner was approved by D.I.O.S. on 29.12.1992. 3. Munshi Lal Verma retired on 30.6.2001, as a consequence thereto the vacancy on the post of Lecturer Hindi, which was short term initially, stood converted into substantive vacancy. In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Surendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others. Reported in 2007 (1) ESC 118, the appointment offered to the writ petitioner on ad hoc basis against short term vacancy came to an automatic end. 4. The vacancy caused on 30.6.2001 which was substantive in nature is required to be filled as per the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 hereinafter referred to as Rules 1988. It is not disputed between the parties that Rule 14 of Rules 1998 will hold the field. Under order dated 27.8.2001, salary which was earlier being paid to the petitioner in Lecturer Grade was suspended. By means of subsequent order of the Joint Director of Education dated 11.10.2001, respondent No. 2 Raja Ram Yadav has been directed to be promoted on the post of Lecturer Hindi. It is against these two orders that present writ petition has been filed. The promotion granted to Raja Ram Yadav is challenged on following two grounds. By means of subsequent order of the Joint Director of Education dated 11.10.2001, respondent No. 2 Raja Ram Yadav has been directed to be promoted on the post of Lecturer Hindi. It is against these two orders that present writ petition has been filed. The promotion granted to Raja Ram Yadav is challenged on following two grounds. (a) Raja Ram Yadav obtained a degree of M.A. in Hindi in 1999 and, therefore, on the first day of the year of recruitment with reference to the date of substantive vacancy on the post of Lecturer Hindi i.e. 30.6.2001 he had not completed five years of substantive service as L.T. Grade Teacher with requisite qualification applicable to the post of Lecturer Hindi i.e. he had not completed five years of service as L.T. grade teacher after obtaining degree of M.A. in Hindi and, therefore, not eligible for being considered for promotion counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Usha Goyal v. State of U.P., 2004 (3) ESC 1187 and in the case of Shail Kumari v. State of U.P., 2007(1) ESC 118. (b) In view of Section 33(c) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1992, Munshi Lal Verma was entitled to be regularized as Principal w.e.f. 6.8.1999 and the said date is to be taken as the date for determining the first date of the year of recruitment. Admittedly on the relevant date Raja Ram Yadav was not having a degree of M.A. in Hindi, which is the essential qualification for appointment as Lecturer Hindi and therefore ineligible for being promoted. 5. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that Sri Munshi Lal Verma filed Writ Petition No. 29155 of 1999 for regularization of his promotion as Principal however no interim relief was granted. In view of retirement of Munshi Lal Verma the writ petition has become infructuous. 6. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is opposed by Sri Ramesh Upadhyaya, Advocate and it is contended that on a simple reading of Rule 14 it is amply clear that five years teaching experience alongwith requisite minimum qualification has to be possessed by the teacher on the first date of the year of recruitment. 6. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is opposed by Sri Ramesh Upadhyaya, Advocate and it is contended that on a simple reading of Rule 14 it is amply clear that five years teaching experience alongwith requisite minimum qualification has to be possessed by the teacher on the first date of the year of recruitment. He points out that the words ‘as such’ in Rule 14 are referable to the post from which the promotion is to be considered and not to the period of possessing the academic qualification qua the promotional post. He submitted that a candidate who has teaching experience in L.T. Grade of 5 years and requisite qualification qua the post of Lecturer in the subject concerned on the relevant date cannot be denied such promotion on the ground that after obtaining minimum qualification qua the post of Lecturer he has not worked as L.T. Grade teacher for 5 years to be counted from the date of acquisition of said qualification. Respondent has filed a copy of the order of the Joint Director of Education dated 14.2.2009 whereunder the petitioner has been called upon to show-cause as to why his promotion on the post of Lecturer Hindi be not cancelled. 7. For appreciating the issue as to whether on the first date of the year of recruitment, the teacher entitled to be considered for promotion under Rule 14 of 1998 Rules should have completed 5 years of teaching in L.T. Grade with requisite qualification for the post of Lecturer as has been laid down in the case of Usha Goyal and Shail Kumari (supra) or not it would be worthwhile to reproduce the history of the rules regulating the promotion in recognized Intermediate Colleges. 8. Prior to the enforcement of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 1982 Act), promotion on the post of Lecturer in Intermediate Colleges was regulated by Regulation 6 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act and read as follows : Rule 6. 8. Prior to the enforcement of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 1982 Act), promotion on the post of Lecturer in Intermediate Colleges was regulated by Regulation 6 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act and read as follows : Rule 6. “Where any vacancy in the lecturer’s grade or in the L.T. Grade as determined under Regulation 5, is to be filled by promotion, all teachers working in the L.T. or the C.T. grade, as the case may be, having a minimum of five years continuous substantive service to their credit on the date of occurrence of the vacancy shall be considered for promotion by the Committee of Management without their having to apply for the same provided they possess the prescribed minimum qualifications for teaching the subject in which the teacher in the lecturer’s grade or in the L.T. Grade is required. 9. After enforcement of the 1982 Act, promotion was regulated under Rule 9 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983. This Rule of 1983 was further amended in the year 1986-86 and Rule 9 after amendment reads as follows : Rule 9. Where any vacancy is to be filled by promotion all teachers in L.T. or C.T. grade, who possess the minimum qualifications and have put in at least 5 years continuous service as such teacher, on 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 purposes of this sub-rule, service rendered in any other recognised institution shall count for eligibility, unless interrupted by removal, dismissal or reduction to a lower post. Note-For the purposes of this sub-rule, service rendered in any other recognised institution shall count for eligibility, unless interrupted by removal, dismissal or reduction to a lower post. In the year 1995 fresh Rules namely U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1995 were enforced and vide Rule 14 of the same provided for promotion as is as follows : Rule 14 : 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.” Note-For the purposes of this sub-rule, regular service rendered in any other recognised institution shall be counted for eligibility, unless interrupted by removal, dismissal or reduction to a lower post. The Rules which regulate promotion as on date i.e. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1998, vide Rule 14 provide as follows : Rule 14 : “Where any vacancy is to be filled by promotion all teachers working in trained graduates grade or Certificate of Teaching grade, if any, who possess the qualifications, prescribed for the post and have completed five years continuous regular 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 grade, as the case may be, without their having applied for the same.” Note-For the purposes of this sub-rule, regular service rendered in any other recognised institution shall be counted for eligibility, unless interrupted by removal, dismissal or reduction to a lower post. From the history of the rules, regulating promotion quoted above, it will be seen that prior to 1986-87 for the purpose of promotion from C.T. Grade to L.T. Grade and L.T. Grade to Lecturers Grade one of the conditions required was that the teacher concerned must be teaching the subject qua the vacancy on which he is to be considered for promotion (as is apparent from the simple reading of the Regulation 6 of Chapter II). The said requirement of teaching experience in the subject concerned was done away with under the Rules 1983 as amended 1986-87 by deleting the words of teaching in the subject concerned. 10. The impact of such amendment was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sheo Shankar Lal v. Chairman, U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad and others, 1990(1) UPLBEC 335 and it was held that in view of the change in language of Rule 9 of Rules, 1983 as per amendment in 1986-87 the requirement of the teacher concerned being actually teaching the subject concerned stands withdrawn. For the purpose of promotion under 1983 Rules what was required after 1986-87 amendment was 5 years teaching experience in the lower grade with requisite qualifications prescribed for the post on which the teacher was to be promoted. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows : “Even in 1983 Rules, it was mentioned that vacancy is to be filled by promotion of teachers working in L.T. or the C.T. grade, who possess the minimum qualifications and have put in at least five years continuous service as teacher on the date of occurrence of vacancy shall be considered for promotion without having applied for the same. But the amended rule provides that where any vacancy is to be filled by promotion all teachers working in L.T. or C.T. grade possessed or the minimum qualifications and have put in at least five years continuous service as teacher on the date of occurrence of the vacancy shall be considered for promotion to Lecturer or L.T. grade as the case may be, without their having applied for the same. Sub-rule (2) of the earlier rule as well as the present rules are similar which provides that the criterion for promotion shall be seniority subject to the rejection of unfit. A perusal of the earlier rule as well as the amended rule indicates that while in the earlier rule it was a condition precedent that at least five years continuous service as teacher in the concerned subject was necessary, but the amended Rule 9 provides five years continuous service as teacher on the date of the occurrence of the vacancy. A perusal of the earlier rule as well as the amended rule indicates that while in the earlier rule it was a condition precedent that at least five years continuous service as teacher in the concerned subject was necessary, but the amended Rule 9 provides five years continuous service as teacher on the date of the occurrence of the vacancy. The omission or deletion of the words “in the concerned subject” in the said rule indicate the intention of the rule-making power that a teacher who fulfills the minimum qualifications and have put in at least five years continuous service as teacher on the date of the occurrence of the vacancy and is senior will be entitled for promotion. Even, if he has not put in at least five years continuous service as a teacher in the concerned subject. We cannot substitute or import any other meaning which the rule making power intended to import. When the rule-making authority itself has deleted the words “in the concerned subject” we cannot import a meaning different to the meaning of the rule-making power. Certainly the omission of the words “in the concerned subject” is deliberate and hence a teacher who possesses the minimum qualification and has in at least five years continuous service as a teacher on the date of occurrence of vacancy and is senior-most according to the seniority list subject to the rejection of unfit is entitled to be appointed as Lecturer.” 11. Under the 1995 Rule the words ‘L.T. Grade and C.T. Grade’ used earlier have been clarified to mean the Trained Graduates grade (L.T.) and Certificate of Teaching (C.T.) grade. Another change made in the Rule was that the requirement of being possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification and the teaching experience of 5 years on the date of occurrence of vacancy was substituted to be determined with reference to the first date of year of recruitment. The words first date of the year of recruitment have been explained by the High Court in the case of Subhash Prasad v. Regional Selection Committee through its Chairman and others, 2004 (3) ESC 1385, which has since been affirmed under the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1773 of 2008 decided on 16.12.2008. 12. The words first date of the year of recruitment have been explained by the High Court in the case of Subhash Prasad v. Regional Selection Committee through its Chairman and others, 2004 (3) ESC 1385, which has since been affirmed under the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1773 of 2008 decided on 16.12.2008. 12. So far as the 1998 Rules are concerned, the only change brought about is that the teaching experience of 5 years required under the earlier rules has been further clarified to mean teaching experience as a regular teacher. Meaning thereby that the services rendered on ad hoc basis as teacher in the lower grade are not to be counted for the purpose of computing 5 years teaching experience. 13. From reading of Regulation 6 of Chapter II and Rule 9 of the 1983 regulating promotion it will be seen that there was no explicit demarcation qua the teaching experience of working as L.T. grade or C.T. grade for the purpose of promotion to lecturer grade and L.T. grade respectively. 14. In my opinion the use of word ‘as such’ under 1995 Rules and 1998 Rules relate to the particular post from which the teacher concerned is to be promoted i.e. C.T. Grade or L.T. Grade as well as to the post on which the promotion is to be made i.e. L.T. Grade or Lecturers Grade as the case may be. To put it simply it means that a teacher in C.T. grade must be possessed 5 years continuous regular teaching experience alongwith essential qualifications prescribed for the post of L.T. grade teacher for being considered for promoting as L.T. grade teacher and similarly an L.T. grade teacher possessed of 5 years regular teaching experience as L.T. grade teacher and essential qualification prescribed for the post of Lecturer concerned is to be considered for promotion on the post of Lecturer. 15. It is not necessary that such teaching experience of 5 years must be from the date the candidate had acquired the minimum academic qualification qua the promotional post as has been held in the case of Usha Goyal (supra) and as followed in the case of Shail Kumari (Supra). 16. On reading of the rules, as were existing earlier, it would be seen that it left, some reason to doubt qua the teaching experience to be possessed by the candidate concerned. 16. On reading of the rules, as were existing earlier, it would be seen that it left, some reason to doubt qua the teaching experience to be possessed by the candidate concerned. It could be argued in a given case that a teacher, who was initially appointed as a teacher in C.T. Grade and subsequently appointed by direct recruitment as L.T. Grade could assert that for computing the 5 years of teaching experience under the Rules, the length of service rendered in CT grade be also counted, for promotion to Lecturer grade. 17. For example, a teacher appointed in C.T. Grade in one particular institution and having worked as such for two years, on his subsequent appointment as a L.T. Grade teacher by direct recruitment in another recognized Intermediate College, on completing 3 years of service as L.T. grade teacher could claim that he had 5 years of teaching experience as contemplated under the Rules (prior to Rules of 1995) for promotion in Lecturers Grade. 19. It is for the purpose of removing this ambiguity that amendments under the 1995 Rules have been made requiring the teacher concerned to be possessed of 5 years teaching experience of the post from which he is to be promoted and the qualification of the post on which he is to be promoted. The word ‘as such’ only suggest that this 5 years teaching experience is to be possessed in the lower grade with reference to the post on which promotion is to be made. 20. Another reason for the said conclusion is that earlier there was a requirement of 5 years teaching experience in the subject concerned, with reference to the promotional post. This requirement was deleted by the Legislature consciously under Rules 1983 as amended in 1986-87. No purpose is to be achieved by insisting upon the requirement of the teacher concerned to have worked for 5 year after achieving the qualifications qua the post on which he is to be promoted, when he is to continue to teach in the lower grade in a different subject. 21. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the law as laid down in the case of Usha Goel (supra) as followed in the case of Shail Kumari (supra) requires to be examined by a Larger Bench of this Court. Accordingly, following questions are referred for decision to the Larger Bench. 21. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the law as laid down in the case of Usha Goel (supra) as followed in the case of Shail Kumari (supra) requires to be examined by a Larger Bench of this Court. Accordingly, following questions are referred for decision to the Larger Bench. (a) Whether the law laid down in the case of Usha Goel (supra) as followed in the case of Shail Kumari (supra) providing that for a teacher to be eligible for promotion under Rule 14 of 1998 Rules, he must have 5 years teaching experience subsequent to his having acquired the essential qualifications prescribed qua the post on which he is to be promoted is the correct law. (b) Whether the word ‘as such’ used in Rule 14 of the 1998 Rules refer to the post on which the promotion is to be made from the post in the lower cadre and the qualifications prescribed thereto only and does not require teaching experience of 5 years subsequent to the acquisition of such minimum qualification qua the promotional post. 22. Let the records of the present writ petition be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for constituting the Larger Bench at the earliest. ————