JUDGMENT Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J. 1. At the out-set, I would like to point out that while entertaining the instant writ petition, this Court, on 10.7.2003, had directed for issuing notice to the opposite party no.1 i.e. Committee of Management, DAV Inter College, Balrampur and the order sheet reveals that registered notice was sent to opposite party no.1 but no one has put in appearance. Vide endorsement dated 2.1.2015 contained on the order-sheet of the Registry, the notice on opposite party no.1 has been reported to be deemed sufficient under Chapter VIII Rule 12 Expln. II of the Rules of the Court. 2. Heard Sri Anupam Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prashant Jaiswal, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State. No one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.1, as indicated above. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2002 passed by the Joint Director of Education IX Region, Faizabad (opposite party no.6) whereby claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Lecturer in Mathematics in DAV Inter College, Balrampur, has been rejected, the petitioner has filed instant writ petition. Petitioner has also inter-alia prayed that opposite party no.6 be directed to accord formal sanction to the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Maths w.e.f. 1.1.1999. 4. In short, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher, CT grade, on which post he was regularized w.e.f. 12.6.1985. He was granted L.T. grade. w.e.f. 1.11.1991. On 30.6.1996, a post of Lecturer in Mathematics fell vacant due to retirement of an incumbent working on the aforesaid post, namely, Sri Narsingh Nath Shukla. The said post belongs to promotion quota and was to be filled through promotion but at the time of occurrence of the aforesaid vacancy, no incumbent, working on the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade was fully qualified/eligible to be considered for promotion on the aforesaid post. Therefore, the post in question could not be filled immediately. When the petitioner obtained degree in M.Sc. Therefore, the post in question could not be filled immediately. When the petitioner obtained degree in M.Sc. (Mathematics) from Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh University, Faizabad in the year 1998 and became fully eligible for appointment on the post in question as per norms envisaged under the provisions of Rule 14 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules 1998 ( hereinafter referred to as "1998 Rules"), he made an application dated 4.8.1998 to the Principal of the College, and a copy thereof was also sent to the DIOS and Joint Director of Education. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of respondents, the petitioner preferred a writ petition no. 5492(SS) of 1998, which was finally disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 20.2.1999, whereby the Joint Director of Education, the DIOS and the Committee of Management were directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion under the existing 1998 Rules. Consequently, the Joint Director of Education examined the representation and rejected the same vide order dated 23.4.1999, which was again assailed by the petitioner in writ petition no. 2089 of 1999 (SS) and this Court while entertaining the writ petition passed an ad-interim order staying the operation of the order dated 23.4.1999. Ultimately vide judgment and order dated 5.7.1999, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with the observation that the petitioner was not eligible in recruitment year 1995-96 and consequently, uphold the order dated 23.4.1999 passed by the Joint Director -opposite party no.6 6. Being dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 5.7.1999 passed in the writ petition, he had to prefer Special Appeal no. 294 of 1999 (SS). While allowing the said Special Appeal and setting aside the order dated 5.7.1999 of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench held as under: - " It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that up till now no recruitment has taken place. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the Joint Director of Education shall consider the appointment of the appellant/petitioner in the light of this judgment and take appropriate decision in accordance with law within one month from the date of communication of this order." 7. When the aforesaid order was not complied with for a considerable long time, the petitioner was compelled to initiate contempt proceedings. When the aforesaid order was not complied with for a considerable long time, the petitioner was compelled to initiate contempt proceedings. Thereafter the petitioner was served with the order dated 17.10.2002 whereby claim of the petitioner once again was rejected and consequently, the contempt petition was rejected. The recall application was also rejected vide order dated 21.10.2002 with the direction to challenge the order in the writ jurisdiction. 8. Feeling the excruciating pain in view of aforesaid unjustified and illegal orders, the petitioner has preferred instant writ petition inter-alia contending that the impugned order passed by the opposite party no.6 is in utter contravention to the provisions of 1998 Rules. It has also been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has culminated into a substantial failure of justice marring the legal rights of the petitioner. 9. Attacking the aforesaid impugned order, the petitioner further stated that impugned order is in utter contravention to Rule 14 of the 1998 Rules, wherein it has been wrongly stated that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion when the vacancy arose on 1.7.1996, meaning thereby that the date of occurrence of vacancy has been taken to be the relevant date , on the contrary Rule 14 of the 1998 Rules enjoins that apart from completion of five years continuous regular service, the incumbent should be fully eligible on the first day of recruitment year and not on the date of occurrence of vacancy, which was the old rule, and it has lost its relevance and cannot be given effect to, more so in view of the fact that till date the post in question is lying vacant as no recruitment was done for the said post. 10. Lastly, it has been argued that the ground for denying promotion to the petitioner is manifestly untenable in view of the Full Bench verdict given in Raeesul Hasan vs. State of U.P.; 2015(33) LCD 1411(FB) wherein the Full Bench has held that it is the year of recruitment i.e. a period of twelve months commencing from first day of July of a calender year and not the date of vacancy, which is relevant for determination of eligibility for promotion to the Lecturer's grade. 11. 11. Refuting the allegations of the petitioner, it has been urged by the learned State Counsel that in the College the substantive post of Lecturer (Maths) fell vacant after the retirement of Sri Narsingh Nath Shukla on 30.6.1996. The petitioner after two years of vacancy i.e. in the year 1998 completed M.Sc. (Maths). In compliance of the order dated 20.2.1999 passed in petitioner's writ petition and the order dated 19.2.2000 passed in Special Appeal No. 294 (SB) of 1999, the Competent Authority i.e. Joint Director, IX Region, Faizabad, considered the claim of the petitioner but found him ineligible on the date of vacancy as he was not having requisite qualification. In this situation, as no one was eligible under the promotional quota, the vacancy was to be filled by direct recruitment. 12. As much emphasis has been laid down with regard to the date for the purpose of determination of criteria of availability and eligibility for promotion to the post of Lecturer, I deem it proper to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the Full Bench judgment in Raeesul Hasan's case [supra] whereby the lis in this regard has been permanently set at rest and all doubts in this regard have been removed and it was held in unambiguous words that every teacher who fulfills the norm of eligibility on the first day of the year of recruitment has to be considered for promotion. A teacher who fulfills the prescribed norms cannot be excluded on the ground that he/she did not fulfill the condition of eligibility when the vacancy occurred at an anterior point in time. Relevant paragraphs i.e. paragraphs 21, 22,24 and 25 are reproduced hereunder: - "21. The change, which has been brought out by the Rules of 1995 followed by the Rules of 1998 from the position as it obtained in the Rules of 1983 for filling up vacancies by promotion, was noticed in a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Kashi Prasad Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors. In that case, a learned Single Judge had directed consideration of the candidature of the petitioner for promotion if he was eligible and if a vacancy existed under the Rules of 1998. The Joint Director of Education, however, held against the petitioner on the ground that on the date of the occurrence of vacancy, he was not eligible. In that case, a learned Single Judge had directed consideration of the candidature of the petitioner for promotion if he was eligible and if a vacancy existed under the Rules of 1998. The Joint Director of Education, however, held against the petitioner on the ground that on the date of the occurrence of vacancy, he was not eligible. A second writ petition filed in order to challenge the order of the Joint Director of Education, resulted in the acceptance of those findings. Noticing the change in the legal position, the Division Bench in a special appeal held as follows: - "4.... It may be noted here that after the said Rules, 1983, there are the Rules, 1995 and the Rules, 1998. Rule 10 of the Rules 1983 and the proviso thereof provides that as and when any vacancy occurs and if the suitable eligible candidates are not available for recruitment by promotion, the posts may be filled in by direct recruitment. There is significant departure in subsequent Rules, 1995 as well as in the Rules, 1998. It is clear that there is a change which was brought out in the Rules, 1995. The proviso of rule 10-C of the Rules, 1995 makes it very clear that if under any year of recruitment suitable eligible candidates are not available for recruitment by promotion the posts may be filled in by direct recruitment. Therefore, if suitable eligible candidates are not available for recruitment in the year by promotion only then process of direct recruitment shall be adopted. The learned single Judge did not consider the subsequent Rules, 1995 and the Rules, 1998 and decided the matter on the Rules, 1983, although he himself directed the Joint Director of Education to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion, if he is eligible and there exists a vacancy under the existing Rules, 1998. In view of this, we are of the view that learned single Judge was not correct in arriving at his conclusion and accordingly the order passed by the learned single Judge stands set aside." 22. A subsequent decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Prasad vs. Regional Selection Committee Gorakhpur dealt with a situation where a vacancy in the lecturer's grade had occurred on 1 July 1997. On the date of the occurrence of vacancy, the respondent was alone an eligible candidate. A subsequent decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Prasad vs. Regional Selection Committee Gorakhpur dealt with a situation where a vacancy in the lecturer's grade had occurred on 1 July 1997. On the date of the occurrence of vacancy, the respondent was alone an eligible candidate. However, by the date on which the Committee of Management sent its resolution, the appellant had also become eligible. The issue which fell for consideration before the Division Bench was whether the date of the occurrence of vacancy or the first day of the recruitment year could be taken to be the relevant date for determining the eligibility and suitability of the candidate for promotion. The Division Bench noted that under regulation 6 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U P Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the pre-requisite condition for becoming eligible for promotion was that a teacher must have to his credit a minimum of five years' continuous substantive service on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. The Division Bench noted that the requirement of five years' continuous service as a teacher on the date of the occurrence of vacancy was also specified in Rule 9 of the Rules of 1983. In this background, the Division Bench observed as follows: "23. In the present case considering the facts and circumstances as brought on record, this date has to be taken as the first of July, 1997 as the Management had to send the statement of vacancies to the Inspector by 15th of July as mandated in Rule 11 of the Rules of 1995. It is, therefore, obvious that five years' continuous service which stood prescribed as one of the minimum eligibility criterion must have been completed in the present case latest by 1st July 1997. The appellant could not, by any stretch of imagination, be taken to have to his credit five years' continuous service by the aforesaid date. He was, therefore, clearly ineligible for being considered for promotion in the next above Lecturer grade as against the vacancy falling in the promotion quota. In the view of Division Bench: - "27. The appellant could not, by any stretch of imagination, be taken to have to his credit five years' continuous service by the aforesaid date. He was, therefore, clearly ineligible for being considered for promotion in the next above Lecturer grade as against the vacancy falling in the promotion quota. In the view of Division Bench: - "27. We are clearly of the opinion that taking into consideration the scheme underlying the U P Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Rules of 1995 framed thereunder, it was obligatory to compute the five years' continuous service ending on the first day of the year of recruitment which had to be taken to be that year of recruitment in which the vacancy was ascertained for being forwarded to the Commission on through the Inspector ensuring that it reached the Inspector by 15th of July. The zone of consideration or the field of eligibility of eligible and suitable candidates cannot be permitted to be enlarged at the whim of the Committee of Management or get enlarged on account of its failure to either ascertain the vacancy or send it to the Inspector in the manner prescribed or delay the action contemplated under Rule 14 (3) of the Rules of 1995." 24. The Rules of 1998 make another departure which is evident if Rule 11 of the Rules of 1995 is read in juxtaposition to Rule 11 of the Rules of 1998. Rule 11 (2) of the Rules of 1995 requires that the statement of vacancies for each category of posts to be filled in by direct recruitment or by promotion had to be forwarded by the Management to the Inspector by 15 July of the year of recruitment. In contrast, Rule 11 (2) (a) of the Rules of 1998, requires that the statement of vacancies for each category of posts to be filled in by direct recruitment has to be forwarded by the Management to the Inspector by 15 July of the year of recruitment. In fact, sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1995, required the Management to determine the number of vacancies in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 10 and notify them through the Inspector to the Commission in the manner thereafter provided. In fact, sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1995, required the Management to determine the number of vacancies in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 10 and notify them through the Inspector to the Commission in the manner thereafter provided. In contrast, under Rule 11 (1) of the Rules of 1998, for the purpose of direct recruitment to the post of teacher, the Management is required to determine the number of vacancies in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 10 and notify them through the Inspector. The consequence which is envisaged in sub-rule (4) of Rule 11 takes effect where the Management does not notify the vacancies by the date specified in sub-rule (2) or fails to notify them in accordance with the said sub-rule. Under the Rules of 1998, sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 11 apply only to direct recruitment in contrast to the corresponding provisions under the Rules of 1995. "25. At this stage, it would be necessary to advert to the decision of the Supreme Court in Balbir Kaur & Anr. v. U P Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad & Ors. In that case, the provisions of Section 10 of the U P Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 came up for consideration together with the provisions contained in Rule 11 of the Rules of 1998. The submission which was urged before the Supreme Court was that under Section 10 of the principal Act, the vacancies are to be notified in respect of each year of recruitment and if they are clubbed together, the basic purpose of notifying the vacancies every year in terms of the provisions would be frustrated...". 13. From the aforesaid observations, it emanates that the year of recruitment means what the legislature has defined it to mean. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1983 which is related to promotion, defined 'eligibility' with reference to the date of occurrence of a vacancy. Rule 14 of 1998 rules refers to the year of recruitment and not to the year in which the vacancy has occurred. This provision enjoins that a post can be filled in by direct recruitment, if suitable and eligible candidates are not available in the year of recruitment for promotion. Rule 14 of 1998 rules refers to the year of recruitment and not to the year in which the vacancy has occurred. This provision enjoins that a post can be filled in by direct recruitment, if suitable and eligible candidates are not available in the year of recruitment for promotion. This does not indicate that the eligibility of candidate has to be determined not with reference to the year of recruitment, but with reference to the year in which the vacancy occurred. However, the denial of promotion, in my opinion, to the petitioner is perse bad in law and it shows the bias and prejudice mind of the concerned authority causing colossal loss and injustice to the petitioner. Need to say that fairness in action is the essence of the State authorities, which is lacking in the instant case 14. In the instant case as averred above, the post of Lecturer in Math fell vacant in the College on 30.6.1996 due to retirement of permanent incumbent, namely, Shri Narsingh Nath Shukla. The said post of Lecturer was to be filled in through promotion, but it has not been informed neither by the Management nor by the District Inspector of Schools, Balrampur to the Commission. It has also been brought on record that in the interregnum the State Government issued a Government Order on 17.4.1997 imposing ban on selection process/recruitment, consequently the Commission had also imposed ban for selection. 15. Taking the entire facts in its entirety and legal position, as averred above, it is imminently clear that the impugned order dated 17.10.2002 passed by the Joint Director of Education, IX Region, Faizabad, suffers from legal infirmities and cannot be sustained, consequently it is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Lecturer (Math) w.e.f. 23.4.1999, the date on which claim of the petitioner for promotion was refused and grant him all consequential benefits with a maximum period of three months from today. 16. The writ petition stands allowed in above terms.