JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Shri A.B. Saran, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Shri Vinod Kumar Rai, Advoate, Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 6 assisted by Shri S.P. Singh, Advocate and the learned Standing Counsel. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he deserves to be interviewed as a senior most lecturer keeping in view the fact that he has teaching experience of Class 11 and 12 in the institution and therefore in terms of the Rules framed under the U.P. Secondary Services Selection Boards Act, 1982, the petitioner has to be called for interview. 3. Shri Ashok Khare has taken a preliminary objection to the said claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner does not have an experience in the lecturer grade in view of the law laid down in the case of Balbir Kaur and another v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad and others, 2008 (3) ESC 409. He submits that in the absence of requisite teaching experience as defined under the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the petitioner is not entitled for being interviewed. 4. The matter was adjourned on 14.12.2009 to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate his claim of teaching experience and a supplementary affidavit has been filed today bringing on record the Government Order dated 25th October, 2000, under which the petitioner was granted the benefit of the pay scale of a lecturer. The petitioner was admittedly a Physical Education Training teacher. The said cadre was extended benefits of pay scale in the lecturers grade under the relevant Government Orders. There are certain queries with regard to the status of such teachers, which came to be clarified under the Government Order dated 25th October, 2000. The said Government Order in Clause 7 specifically recites that a person claiming such benefit would be entitled to the same after he assumes charge as a lecturer upon being granted the said benefit. It is further provided therein that any service rendered prior to such grant would be treated to be in the L.T. Grade and seniority also cannot been claimed by such a teacher. 5. It is undisputed that the petitioner has been extended the benefit under the said order dated 8th July, 2006, a copy whereof is annexure 2 to the writ petition. 5. It is undisputed that the petitioner has been extended the benefit under the said order dated 8th July, 2006, a copy whereof is annexure 2 to the writ petition. The said order recites that the petitioner was being extended the benefit under the Government Order dated 25.10.2000 and he is entitled to the said pay scale in view of his having completed 10 years. The said pay scale was being given w.e.f. 29.1.2001. 6. In view of the aforesaid position, it is clear that the petitioner has been extended the benefit under the order dated 8th July, 2006 and therefore he can claim experience as a lecturer only with effect from the said date and not any date prior to that. Apart from this, the benefit under the Government Order dated 25.10.2000 does not appear to bring a teacher so benefited, within the regular cadre of lecturers. The post however gets upgraded for being converted into the lecturers grade later on. This transitory nature of the post therefore cannot confer any benefit as lecturer so long as an order is not passed, as in the present case, on 8.7.2006. The petitioner therefore did not have any experience “as a lecturer” prior to 8.7.2006. The petitioner can be treated to have been acknowledged as a lecturer only after the said date and his experience has to be counted in this capacity. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner after 8.7.2006 does not have a minimum experience of four years as held by the Apex Court in Balbir Kaur’s case (supra). 8. The writ petition therefore lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. ————