JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.C. Misra, learned counsel for contesting respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the present writ petition may be finally disposed of at this stage without calling for any further affidavit, specifically in view of the order proposed to be passed today. 3. Municipal Intermediate College, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad is an aided and recognised intermediate college. The provisions U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and those of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 as well as U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to the Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 are fully applicable to the teachers of the said institution. 4. Petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of the order dated 28th August, 2000 passed by the Regional Selection Committee as communicated under the letter of the Regional Joint Director of Education, Kanpur, whereby respondent No. 4 has been recommended for promotion on the post of Lecturer (Sociology) in the institution. 5. The present writ petition was entertained by this Court vide order dated 15th September, 2000 and an interim order was granted on the same date, as a result whereof neither the petitioner nor the respondent No. 4 are being paid salary of the post of. Lecturer. Respondent No. 4, however, contends that he is discharging the duties of Lecturer since the year 2000. 6. Facts in short relevant for deciding the present writ petition are as follows : Petitioner was appointed as C.T. Grade teacher in the institution on 5th March, 1980. In view of Section 33-D, petitioner stands declared as L.T. Grade teacher w.e.f. 5th March, 1990. Respondent No. 4 was appointed as L.T. Grade teacher by direct recruitment on ad hoc basis on 16th December, 1989. His services were regularised as L.T. Grade teacher under the order dated 15th October, 1994 w.e.f. 7th August, 1993. 7. One Sri Vimal Chandra Gangwar who was working as Lecturer (Sociology) in the institution, retired from service on 30th June, 1998. There is no dispute between the parties that the vacancy falls within the 50% quota reserved for promotion. Under the order impugned respondent No. 4 has been recommended for promotion by the Regional Selection Committee on the said post. 8. There is no dispute between the parties that the vacancy falls within the 50% quota reserved for promotion. Under the order impugned respondent No. 4 has been recommended for promotion by the Regional Selection Committee on the said post. 8. The order of promotion is being challenged on the ground that as against 13 sanctioned posts of Lecturer. 7 posts of Lecturer have been filled by direct recruitment. 4 posts are occupied by the persons appointed by way of promotion, out of whom one is a member of scheduled caste. It is therefore, stated that there is no vacancy available for promotion for being reserved for the category of scheduled caste. Petitioner further contends that since he was declared to be an L.T. Grade teacher w.e.f. 5th March, 1990 and further since respondent No. 4 has been regularised as L.T. Grade teacher w.e.f. 7th August, 1993, petitioner is senior to respondent No. 4 and therefore, had preferential claim for being promoted under Rule 14 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998. It is therefore, submitted that the impugned order which has been passed without considering the claim of the petitioner cannot be legally sustained. 9. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is opposed by Sri P.C. Mishra, learned counsel for contesting respondent No. 4. He submits that the appointment of respondent No. 4 by direct recruitment as L.T. Grade teacher was strictly in accordance with the rules applicable. Such appointment was therefore a regular appointment and the services rendered by respondent No. 4 from the date of initial appointment dated 16th December, 1989 are to be taken into consideration for determination of his seniority, specifically when such appointment has been followed by regularization. He therefore, submits that respondent No. 4 is senior to the petitioner and has rightly been recommended for promotion. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. 11. This Court finds that there is a serious dispute of inter se seniority between the petitioner and respondent No. 4, which inturn would reflect upon their respective claims for being promoted against the vacancy which has been caused in the institution. 12. 11. This Court finds that there is a serious dispute of inter se seniority between the petitioner and respondent No. 4, which inturn would reflect upon their respective claims for being promoted against the vacancy which has been caused in the institution. 12. Rule 14 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 provides that all teachers working in trained graduates grade or certificate of teaching grade, if any, who possesses 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, as the case may be. For the purpose the Management is obliged to prepare a list of teachers referred to in sub-rule (1), and forward it to the Inspector with a copy of seniority list. Rule 14 (5) of Rules, 1998 is relevant for our purposes and the same reads as follows : "14. Procedure for recruitment by promotion....... (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 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 committee’s recommendation, shall forward the panel of selected candidates within one month to the Inspector with a copy thereof to the Management." 13. From bare reading of the aforesaid rule, it is apparently clear that the Joint Director is obliged to consider the cases of the candidates on the basis of records with reference to sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 and the Joint Director is, thereafter, obliged to place the records before the Selection Committee referable to sub-section (1) of Section 12 of Act, 1982. 14. Since in the facts of the present case the aforesaid exercise has not been undertaken and the Regional Joint Director of Education has not considered the claim of the petitioner vis-a-vis, that of the respondent No. 4 before placing the records before the Selection Committee, the impugned order cannot be legally sustained. Consequently the order dated 28th August, 2000 is hereby set aside. Consequently the order dated 28th August, 2000 is hereby set aside. Let the Regional Joint Director of Education, Kanpur do the needful in terms of sub-rule 5 of Rule, 14 of Rules, 1998 within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. He shall thereafter place the records of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 before the Selection Committee which shall take final decision in the matter within a further period of four weeks. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the Inspector for necessary action. 15. This Court may clarify that if the authorities come to the conclusion that respondent No. 4 is entitled for such promotion, then it would logically follow that he would become entitled to the salary from the date he has actually worked as Lecturer under the earlier order of promotion dated 28th August, 2000. However, if the case is otherwise, notional promotion may be recommended by the Selection Committee in favour of the petitioner, but payment of salary as lecturer in his favour shall take effect from the date of promotion only. 16. The present writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made above. ————