JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—In writ petition No. 13771 of 2007, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the Regional Selection Committee and Chairman Joint Director of Education, VIIth Region, Gorakhpur to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of lecturer in Sociology and challenging the promotion of respondent No. 6, namely, Sri Radhey Shyam Prasad. 2. In writ petition No. 27873 of 2007, the petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 1.6.2007 passed by Joint Director of Education, VIIth Region, Gorakhpur by which claim of respondent No. 6 for his appointment as Officiating Principal of the college has been accepted and the claim of the petitioner has been rejected and further for quashing of the promotional order dated 15.6.2004 promoting the respondent No. 6 on the post of lecturer. 3. Since the common cause is involved in both the writ petitions, same are being disposed of by a common order. 4. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petitions are as follows: (i) There is a college named as Maninath Inter College, Nonapar District Deoria, which is recognised/Government aided intermediate College imparting education to boys and girls from Class VI to Class XII. It is governed by the provisions contained under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as well as U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1982”) and the Rules framed thereunder and also under U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. (ii) Sri Lalit Kumar Mishra was initially granted regular appointment in L.T. grade on 25.7.1983 and after expiry of the period of probation, he was confirmed in L.T. Grade w.e.f. 25.7.1968. He passed M.A. in Sociology in the year, 1975 from Gorakhpur University. He was granted selection grade of L.T. w.e.f. 25.7.1983 and promotion grade of L.T. w.e.f. 1.1.1996 under the relevant Government orders. A post of Sociology lecturer in the college fell vacant on account of retirement of its permanent incumbent Sri Jagdish Tiwari on 30.6.2003. He claimed promotion on the post of lecturer being senior-most qualified teacher. Instead of considering his claim for promotion Sri Radhey Shyam Prasad who was appoined in L.T. Grade on ad hoc basis on 2.4.1993 was given promotion on 15.6.2004. It is claimed that the services of Radhey Shyam Prasad was never regularised. He claimed promotion on the post of lecturer being senior-most qualified teacher. Instead of considering his claim for promotion Sri Radhey Shyam Prasad who was appoined in L.T. Grade on ad hoc basis on 2.4.1993 was given promotion on 15.6.2004. It is claimed that the services of Radhey Shyam Prasad was never regularised. Challenging the promotion of Radhey Shyam Prasad on the post of lecturer and denial of his claim on the said post, he filed writ petition No. 13771 of 2007. During the course of argument, it is informed that Sri Lalit Kumar Mishra retired on 30.6.2007 during the pendency of the writ petition. It may be mentioned here that on 14.3.2007, when the writ petition was entertained, this Court has observed that continuance of respondent No. 6 i.e. Radhey Shyam Prasad shall abide by final order to be passed by this Court. (iii) In the aforesaid college, Shriram Mani Tripathi the petitioner in writ petition No. 27873 of 2007 was initially appointed in L.T. Grade on 9.7.1973 and was placed on probation for a period of one year and after expiry of probation he was confirmed in L.T. Grade w.e.f. 9.7.1974. He was trained graduate (B.Sc., B.Ed.) at the time of his appointment and subsequently passed M.A in Political Science in the year, 1978 from Gorakhpur University. He was granted selection grade of L.T. Grade teacher w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and subsequently was granted promotional pay scale of L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1998 under the relevant Government orders. It is claimed that on the retirement of Harihar Pandey lecturer in Civics on 30.6.1996 post was fell vacant, the petitioner being the senior most claimed the promotion as a lecturer in Civics. It is claimed that the petitioner has been considered and resolution in this regard was drawn by the Committee of Management in its meeting held on 14.7.1996. The petitioner started teaching Civics subject in Class XI and XII. Though, there was no objection on the claim of the petitioner and the resolution passed by the Committee of Management, approval of the promotion was kept pending for long period at the level of District Inspector of Schools and Joint Director of Education. The petitioner started teaching Civics subject in Class XI and XII. Though, there was no objection on the claim of the petitioner and the resolution passed by the Committee of Management, approval of the promotion was kept pending for long period at the level of District Inspector of Schools and Joint Director of Education. On the appointment of Prabandh Sanchalak, the petitioner again raised his grievance for promotion on the post of Civics lecturer and the Prabandh Sanchalak ultimately submitted a resolution dated 23.4.2001 for the promotion on the post of Civics lecturer holding that the petitioner being senior most qualified entitled for promotion. Principal was directed to forward the necessary papers to the District Inspector of Schools. District Inspector of Schools forwarded the letter to the Joint Director of Education vide letter dated 1.12.2001, The Joint Director of Education however, took more than three years in accepting the resolution for promotion in favour of the petitioner and has accepted vide order dated 28.12.2004. Meaning thereby that the promotion of the petitioner has been accepted by the respondent No. 2 on 28.12.2004 on the resolution dated 23.4.2001. The approval of the promotion was granted from the date of issue of order. Prabandh Sanchalak wrote a letter dated 26.6.2006 to the Joint Director of Education with a request to grant approval from the date of resolution. No action whatsoever has been taken on the said letter till date. (iv) The post of principal of the college fell vacant due to retirement of ad hoc principal Sri Yadunandan Yadav on 30.6.2006. Shriram Mani Tripathi being the senior most qualified lecturer claimed for the charge of officiating principal. He was given charge of the office of officiating principal and his signature was also attested by the out going principal on 30.6.2006 and also by the District Inspector of Schools on 14.8.2006. After getting the charge of officiating principal he started regularly functioning and discharging all the functions attached to the office of the principal. It appears that respondent No. 6 Radhey Shyam Prasad submitted representation in the office of Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur on 13.11.2006 claiming cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner as officiating principal and his appointment as officiating principal. Petitioner filed written objection. Joint Director of Education passed the impugned order dated 1.6.2007. It appears that respondent No. 6 Radhey Shyam Prasad submitted representation in the office of Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur on 13.11.2006 claiming cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner as officiating principal and his appointment as officiating principal. Petitioner filed written objection. Joint Director of Education passed the impugned order dated 1.6.2007. Representation of respondent No. 6 was allowed and he was directed to hold the charge of officiating principal on the ground that the respondent No. 6 was senior to the petitioner as he was promoted to the post of Sociology lecturer on 15.6.2004, while the petitioner was promoted to the post of Civics lecturer on 28.12.2004. (v) In paragraphs 11 and 12 of the writ petition, it is stated that respondent No. 6 who was granted ad hoc appointment in L.T. Grade on 21.4.1993, the said appointment was purely ad hoc. It was made pursuant to the letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 21.4.1993 on the basis of the recommendation of the District Selection Committee constituted under the Government order dated 14.7.1992 for ad hoc appointment. The service of respondent No. 6 in L.T. Grade was made purely on ad hoc basis and the same was not regularized. In the college records, however, there is nothing to show that the services of respondent No. 6 in L.T. Grade was ever regularized or any proposal in this regard was ever sent either by erstwhile committee of management or by Prabandh Sanchalak. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by Sri Radhey Shyam Prasad, respondent No. 6, the aforesaid paragraphs have been replied by paragraphs 15 and 16. In paragraph 16, it is stated that his services was regularized by order dated 17.4.2004. 6. Heard Sri T.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Narsingh Dixit appears on behalf of respondent No. 6 and learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of other respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is not in dispute that respondent No. 6 was appointed in L.T. Grade on 21.4.1993 purely on ad hoc basis and as per own admission of respondent No. 6, in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit his services was regularized vide order dated 17.4.2004. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is not in dispute that respondent No. 6 was appointed in L.T. Grade on 21.4.1993 purely on ad hoc basis and as per own admission of respondent No. 6, in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit his services was regularized vide order dated 17.4.2004. In this view of the matter, he was not entitled for promotion under Rule 14 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1998”) inasmuch as he has not completed five years continuous regular service. He submitted that five years continuous regular service means minimum five years continuous substantive service as a regular employee. Since the service was regularized on 17.4.2004, thus on the date of 15.6.2004, he has not completed minimum five years continuous substantive service as a regular employee and, therefore, his promotion on 15.6.2004 was contrary to Rules 14 of the Rules, 1998 and, therefore, his appointment as officiating principal was wholly unjustified. He submitted that Annexure-3 to the counter affidavit is the promotion order dated 15.6.2004 which reveals that on the departure of Sri Jagdish Tiwari, lecturer Sociology on 30.6.2003 the post was fallen vacant on 1.7.2003 and against the said post, he has been promoted as Lecturer Sociology. As per own admission of Sri Radhey Shyam his services was regularized by order dated 17.4.2004. Thus, as on 1.7.2003 the date on which the post has fallen vacant, he was working on ad hoc basis and, therefore, as per Rule 14 he was not eligible to be promoted at all and, therefore, the promotion was void ab initio. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if in Rule 14, the word ‘regular’ may not be considered as substantive then the use of word ‘regular would become redundant in the absence of word ‘five years continuous service would be sufficient to include both the period of service on ad-hoc basis as well as on substantive basis. He submitted that some meaning should be given to the word ‘regular’ and in the context the regular means substantive. 8. He submitted that some meaning should be given to the word ‘regular’ and in the context the regular means substantive. 8. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Dinesh Chandra Mishra v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (5) ADJ 259 and the Division Bench decision in the case of Subhash Prasad v. Regional Selection Committee through its Chairman and others, 2004 (3) ESC 1385. 9. He submitted that the promotion of respondent No. 6 was challenged by Sri Lalit Kumar Mishra right from the very beginning and when the right of Shriram Mani Tripathi appointed as officiating principal has been taken away, he challenged the promotion of respondent No. 6 as on 15.6.2004 and further appointment of respondent No. 6 as officiating principal treating him as senior to him on the ground that the approval of the petitioner on the post of lecturer was granted vide order dated 28.12.2004 subsequent to the approval dated 17.6.2004 in case of respondent No. 6. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submitted that the services of the petitioner has been regularized on 17.4.2004 and the promotion on the post of lecturer was approved on 15.6.2004 on a consideration of Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1994”) out of turn. Respondent No. 6 belongs to scheduled castes. He further submitted that it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the approval order dated 15.6.2004 on the post of lecturer after long time. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order and other documents annexed with both the writ petitions. 12. It is relevant to consider the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Section 12 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1982”) provides the procedure for the selection of the promotion which is quoted hereunder : “12. Procedure of selection by promotion.—(1) For each region there shall be a Selection Committee, for making selection of candidate for promotion to the post of a teacher, comprising— (i) Regional Joint Direction of Education. Chairman. (ii) Senior-most Principal of Government. Member. Inter College in the region. (iii) Concerned District Inspector of Schools. Member-Secretary. Procedure of selection by promotion.—(1) For each region there shall be a Selection Committee, for making selection of candidate for promotion to the post of a teacher, comprising— (i) Regional Joint Direction of Education. Chairman. (ii) Senior-most Principal of Government. Member. Inter College in the region. (iii) Concerned District Inspector of Schools. Member-Secretary. (2) The procedure of selection of candidates for promotion for the post of a teacher shall be such as may be prescribed.” 13. The procedure has been prescribed under Rule 14 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 which is quoted hereunder: “14. Procedure for recruitment by promotion.—(1) 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. (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 Inspector with a copy of seniority list, service records, including the character rolls, and a statement in the proforma given in Appendix ‘A’. (4) With 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 Joint Director. (5) The Joint Director shall consider the cases of the candidates on the basis of the records referred to in sub-rule (3) and may call for such additional information as it may consider necessary. The Joint Director shall place the records before the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 12 and after the Committees recommendation, shall forward the panel of selected candidates within one month to the Inspector with a copy thereof to the Management. The Joint Director shall place the records before the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 12 and after the Committees recommendation, shall forward the panel of selected candidates within one month to the Inspector with a copy thereof to the Management. (6) Within ten days of the receipt of the panel from the Joint Director under sub-rule (5), the Inspector shall send the name of the selected candidates to the Management of the institution which has notified the vacancy and the Management shall accordingly on authorization under its resolution issue the appointment order in the proforma given in Appendix ‘F’ to such candidate.” 14. In the case of Dinesh Chandra Mishra v. State of U.P. and others (supra), learned Single Judge of this Court held as follows : “Rule 14 clearly indicates that a teacher must possess the requisite qualifications for the post in question and should have completed five years of continuous regular service as such on the first day of the year of the recruitment. The year of recruitment has been defined under Section 2 (1) of the Act which means a period of 12 months commencing from the first day of a calendar year i.e.1st of July.” 15. Regulation 6 of Chapter II of the Regulation framed under the Intermediate Education Act, states as under : “6(1) 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. The aforesaid Regulation clearly indicates that teacher is entitled for the promotion, provided he has a minimum of five years of continuous substantive service on the date of the occurrence of the vacancy. The aforesaid Regulation clearly indicates that teacher is entitled for the promotion, provided he has a minimum of five years of continuous substantive service on the date of the occurrence of the vacancy. Section 32 of the Act, 1982 provides that the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations made thereunder in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act of 1982 or the Rules or Regulations made thereunder was continue to be in force for the purpose of selection, appointment, promotion, dismissal, removal, termination or reduction in the rank of a teacher.” 16. In the case of Subhash Prasad v. Regional Selection Committee through its Chairman and others (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held as follows: “The provisions contained under U.P. Intermediate Education Act read with Regulation 6 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed thereunder prescribe the eligibility criteria for promotion from L.T. grade to Lecturer grade. The pre-requisite condition for becoming eligible for promotion which stand prescribed therein is that the teacher concerned must have to his credit a minimum of five years continuous substantive service on the date of occurrence of the vacancy which is sought to be filled up by promotion. The provisions contained in Section 32 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 clearly provide that the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder is so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 or the Rules or Regulations made thereunder shall continue to be in force for the purpose of selection, appointment, promotion, dismissal, removal, termination or reduction in rank of a teacher. The requirement of atleast five years continuous service as a teacher on the date of occurrence of vacancy stood prescribed even under Rule 9 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983. The requirement of atleast five years continuous service as a teacher on the date of occurrence of vacancy stood prescribed even under Rule 9 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983. It may be noticed that while Regulation 6 (1) of the Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act prescribes five years’ continuous substantive service on the date of occurrence of vacancy as a pre-requisite condition for coming within the zone of consideration for promotion, which requirement is retained even under Section 18 (1)(b) of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982, yet there has been a slight departure in this regard in the provisions contained in the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983, where, in Rule 9 thereof instead of ‘five years’ continuous substantive service’, the requisite condition is ‘five years’ continuous service’. This difference, however, does not lead to an inference that ‘five years’ continuous teaching experience was intended to be dispensed with. The five years’ continuous substantive service as well as five years’ continuous service as used in both the above provisions lay emphasis on continuous five years’ teaching experience. The Legislative intent is therefore, obvious. The minimum five years’ teaching experience to the credit of a candidate for promotion is contemplated.” 17. Rule 14 of the Rules, 1998 came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Smt. Suman Bhatnagar v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (1) ESC 348. While considering the word ‘continuous regular service’, Court has held that the regularization of the service does not make his earlier services irregular. The Ad hoc tenure attains the status of a substantive tenure which process is termed as regularisation. Regularisation means in simple language to put in order and to bring about in accordance with Rules. An appointment, which is ad hoc, is made in accordance with Rules of substantive appointment, so as to enable a candidate to join the main stream cadre. For the purposes of eligibility what is required is continuity in service. Further, the learned Single Judge held that the period during which a teacher worked on ad hoc basis may also be considered for the consideration of five years continuous regular service if the appointment on ad hoc basis is in accordance to law and not de hors Rules. 18. Further, the learned Single Judge held that the period during which a teacher worked on ad hoc basis may also be considered for the consideration of five years continuous regular service if the appointment on ad hoc basis is in accordance to law and not de hors Rules. 18. In the case of Yogendra Pal Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Saharanpur, 2001 (3) ESC 1110, learned Single Judge of this Court while dealing in Rule 14 of Rules, 1998 held as follows : “From the above, it is clear that if Rule ‘requires’ exclusion of experience in ‘ ad-hoc’ capacity, then it could not be reckoned and connected under said rules. I have no doubt that Rule 14 (1) clearly contemplate ‘five years continuous’ teaching service on regular/substantive basis.” 19. In the aforesaid case, since the petitioner could not serve continuously five years on substantive basis after regularisation, therefore, his claim for promotion has not been accepted. 20. Almost a similar question came up for consideration in writ petition No. 48452 of 2004, Committee of Management, Shri Krishna Inter College, Budaun through its Manager and another v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 15.6.2007. In the said case, the post was fallen vacant on 1.7.1998. The services of Sri Jai Narain Chaurasia has been regularized w.e.f. 30.12.2000 vide communication dated 3.11.2003. Sri Jai Narain Chaurasia has been appointed as Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade on ad hoc basis on 17.9.1992 against short-term vacancy which had created on account of ad hoc promotion of one Sri Ram Adhar Sharma. The dispute was relating to promotion of Sri Jai Narain Chaurasia. It has been held by the learned Single Judge that on the first day of the year of recruitment i.e.1.7.1998, Sri Jai Narain Chaurasia was not holding substantive status of L.T. Grade teacher as such he was not eligible and was outside the zone of consideration for promotion. Learned Single Judge on consideration of Section 14 and other provisions of the Act held as follows : “This is undisputed fact that the post of English Lecturer had falled vacant on 30.6.1998. Promotion is governed by Rule 14 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998. Learned Single Judge on consideration of Section 14 and other provisions of the Act held as follows : “This is undisputed fact that the post of English Lecturer had falled vacant on 30.6.1998. Promotion is governed by Rule 14 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998. Rule 11 of the said Rules deals with determination of vacancy and Rule 10 deals with source of recruitment and clearly provides that post of lecturers have to be filled up 50% by way of direct recruitment and 50% by way of promotion from amongst substantively appointed teachers of the trained graduates grade. Rule 14 clearly provides that where any vacancy is to be filled up by way of promotion all teachers working in the trained graduates grade or Certificate of Teaching Grade, if any, who possess the qualifications, prescribed for the post and have completed five year continuous regular service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment shall be considered for promotion to the lecturers grade or trained graduates grade, as the case may be, without their having applied for the same. Thus, there are two pre-requisite conditions for being accorded promotion as Lecturer; (i) The post in question on the first day of year of recruitment, shall fall within 50% quota and the zone of consideration is limited from amongst substantively appointed teachers in L.T. Grade i.e. on the first day of year of recruitment incumbent should have substantive status of L.T. Grade Teacher; (ii) On the first day of year of recruitment, candidate should possess prescribed qualifications for the post, and must have completed five years continuous regular service. Substantive appointment has also been defined under Rule 2 (d) of 1998 Rules, as an appointment not being ad hoc appointment on the post of Lecturer made in accordance with U.P. Act No. V of 1982 and Rules, and same is inclusive of appointments made under Section 33-A, 33-B or 33-C. Rule 2 (e) defines vacancy arising out as a result of death, retirement, resignation, termination, dismissal or removal of teacher or creation of new post or appointment or promotion of an incumbent to any higher post in substantive capacity. Thus, on the first day of year of recruitment, the status of L.T. Grade teacher has to be substantive one and coupled with this on the first day of year of recruitment, incumbent has to possess qualification prescribed alongwith five years continuous regular service. Substantive status and five years continuous regular service should not be intermixed with each other as suggesting five years substantive continuous regular service, i.e. not at all purport of the Rule. The purport of Rule is that incumbent who is to be promoted in higher Grade, in the lower Grade must be holding substantive status on the day of first year of recruitment.” 21. Rule 14 clearly provides where any vacancy is to be filled up by way of promotion all the teachers working in the 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 trained graduates grade, as the case may be. Therefore, on the first day of the year of recruitment, the person should have substantive status of L.T. Grade Teacher; on the first day of the year of recruitment, candidate should possess prescribed qualifications for the post and must have completed five years continuous regular service. Rule 2 (d) of 1998 Rules defines substantive appointment means appointment not being ad hoc appointment on the post of lecturer made in accordance with U.P. Act No. V of 1982 and Rules and includes appointments made under Sections 33-A, 33-B or 33-C. Thus on the first day of the year of recruitment, status of L.T. Grade teacher has to be substantive one. 22. In the present case, the first day of the year of recruitment was 1st July, 2003 as post was fallen vacant on the departure of Sri Jagdish Tiwari, Lecturer Sociology on 30.6.2003. As per own case of Sri Radhey Shyam, respondent No. 6 his services was regularized by order dated 17.4.2004. Thus, on 1.7.2003, the first day of the year of recruitment his appointment was not substantive and, thus, not qualified to be promoted. In the circumstances, the promotion of Sri Radhey Shyam, respondent No. 6 as on 15.6.2004 was void ab initio. 23. Thus, on 1.7.2003, the first day of the year of recruitment his appointment was not substantive and, thus, not qualified to be promoted. In the circumstances, the promotion of Sri Radhey Shyam, respondent No. 6 as on 15.6.2004 was void ab initio. 23. In view of the above, it is not necessary to go to the other submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 24. The argument of the learned counsel for respondent No. 6 that he was promoted out-of-turn being Scheduled Caste under Section 3 (7) of the Act, 1994 cannot be accepted. He is not able to show any Government order on the date of commencement of the Act which provided any promotion over-riding the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998. Argument of the learned counsel for respondent No. 6 is that the claim of the petitioner challenging the promotion of respondent No. 6 is barred by latches has no substance. Sri Lalit Kumar Mishra challenged the promotion immediately by way of Writ Petition No. 13771 of 2007 and Shriram Mani Tripathi challenged the promotion immediately when his claim for the post of officiating principal has been denied. The decision of the Apex Court cited by the learned counsel for the respondent in the case of B.N. Nagarajan and others v. State of Karnataka and others, (1979) 4 SCC 507 , does not apply to the present case. In the said case, the question was relating to the seniority and promotion. The Apex Court held that promotees cannot claim seniority towards direct recruits. The Government order regularising the appointment of promotees, held, cannot have the effect of conferring permanency, thus making them senior to the direct recruits in contravention of rules framed under Article 309. This decision of the Apex Court is not on Rule 14 of the Rules 1998 and only on general proposition of law on seniority and promotion and, therefore, has no relevance. 25. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the view that the promotion of respondent No. 6 on 15.6.2004 was contrary to Section 12 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and Rule 14 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 and liable to be set aside. 26. 25. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the view that the promotion of respondent No. 6 on 15.6.2004 was contrary to Section 12 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and Rule 14 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 and liable to be set aside. 26. In view of the above, the order dated 1.6.2007 passed by the Joint Director of Education, VIIth Region, Gorakhpur based on the promotion of respondent No. 6 on 15.6.2004 is also liable to be quashed and is, accordingly, quashed. Since, Sri Lalit Kumar Mishra has retired on 30.6.2007, no mandamus can be issued as prayed in relief claimed. However, his post retiral benefits can be considered in accordance to law. 27. In the result, writ petition No. 27873 of 2007 is allowed and writ petition No. 13771 of 2007 is disposed of as stated above. ————