JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition has challenged the order dated 2nd of January, 2017 passed by the three Members Committee headed by the Joint Director of Education, Region-VI, Lucknow, whereby the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Hindi) in Agrasen Inter College, Lucknow has been rejected. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that the order dated 6th February, 1996 passed earlier by the Deputy Director of Education regularizing the services of the petitioner in C.T. Grade was not as per the rules and since the petitioner's regularization in C.T. Grade is improper, the petitioner's services are to be treated to be temporary and as such he does not fulfill the requisite qualification of putting in five year services in L.T. Grade, hence the proposal made for his promotion cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner was initially appointed against a leave vacancy in C.T. Grade. The appointment of the petitioner in leave vacancy in C.T. Grade was approved by the District Inspector of Schools by means of the order dated 20th of October, 1981. The services of the petitioner were, however, terminated which led the petitioner to file a writ petition numbered as Writ Petition No. 1217 (S/S) of 1989 (Hari Shankar Mishra Vs. DIOS and others), wherein an interim order was passed on 13th of February, 1989 directing therein that until the further order of the Court petitioner shall allow to continue. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner was allowed to continue in C.T. Grade and thereafter the services were regularized by the order dated 6th of February, 1996 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Region-VI, Lucknow under Section 33 B of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act,1982. The petitioner continued to work on regular basis in C.T. grade and thereupon he was absorbed in L.T. Grade by means of the order dated 12th of October, 1999 passed by the District Inspector of School on completion of 10 years of continuous services in C.T. Grade. The petitioner has been working, thus, on regular basis in C.T. Grade from February, 1996 and thereafter in L.T. Grade from October, 1999. The petitioner has been working, thus, on regular basis in C.T. Grade from February, 1996 and thereafter in L.T. Grade from October, 1999. A post of lecturer in Hindi fell vacant on 1st of July, 2012 on retirement of the regular incumbent who was earlier working in the institution on the said post. The petitioner, thus, laid his claim for being promoted to the said post. The proposal to make promotion of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in Hindi was thus forwarded by the management to the authorities concerned by means of a letter dated 30th of October, 2012, however, since the matter was not being finalized, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7949 (S/S) of 2016 (Hari Shankar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others) praying therein that his case for promotion to the post of Lecturer be considered. The said writ petition was finally disposed of by this Court on 13th of April, 2016 with the direction to the Regional Level Committee to consider the claim of the petitioner alongwith other claims for promotion to the post of Lecturer in accordance with law. The reason indicated by the Regional Level Committee while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the promotion to Lecturer is that, since the Writ Petition No. 1217 (S/S) of 1989 was dismissed on 26th of August, 2004 and the interim order was discharged, as such, the regularization of the petitioner in C.T. Grade made vide order dated 6th of February, 1996 passed by the Deputy Director of Education was against the rules. It is noticeable that Writ Petition No. 1217 (S/S) of 1989 was preferred by the petitioner against an order, whereby the services of the petitioner in C.T. Grade had been terminated, in which grade the petitioner was appointed against the leave vacancy and the said appointment against leave vacancy was dully approved by the District Inspector of Schools by means of the order dated 20th of October, 1981. In the said writ petition an order was passed directing therein that until further order of this Court the petitioner shall allow to continue in service. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner's services were regularized in C.T. Grade on 6th of February, 1996 under the statutory provisions as contained in Section 33 B of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner's services were regularized in C.T. Grade on 6th of February, 1996 under the statutory provisions as contained in Section 33 B of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982. Thus, the regularization of the petitioner in C.T. Grade was done under a statutory exercise undertaken by the Deputy Director of Education as mandated by Section 33 B of the aforesaid Act. On completion of 10 years of continue service in C.T. Grade, the petitioner was absorbed in L.T. Grade by means of order dated 12th of October, 1999. The order dated 6th of February, 1996 regularizing the services of the petitioner in C.T. Grade under Section 33 B of the aforesaid Act, as aforementioned has not been cancelled till date; neither the order dated 12th of October 1999 passed by the District Inspector of Schools absorbing the petitioner in L.T. Grade has been cancelled. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the observations made by the three Members Committee while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promoting to the post of Lecturer in Hindi to the effect that order dated 6th of February, 1996 was against the rules, is not tenable. Such a finding has to be viewed in the light of the facts as aforementioned especially the fact that during the pendency of the Writ Petition no. 1217 (S/S) of 1989, the services of the petitioner were regularized in C.T. Grade and it is only thereafter that the petition dismissed on 26th of August, 2004 for non-prosecution and by that time on account of regularization of services of the petitioner in C.T. Grade the petitioner was in fact rendered infructuous. The said observation has also been made by this Court in its order dated 13th of April, 2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 7949 (S/S) of 2016. It is noticeable that observations made by the three Members Committee to the effect that the order dated 6th of February, 1996 was against the rules, has been made in a collateral proceedings, where no challenge was made to the order of regularization of the services of the petitioner in C.T. Grade passed on 6th of February, 1996. It is noticeable that observations made by the three Members Committee to the effect that the order dated 6th of February, 1996 was against the rules, has been made in a collateral proceedings, where no challenge was made to the order of regularization of the services of the petitioner in C.T. Grade passed on 6th of February, 1996. Dismissal of the Writ Petition No. 1217 (S/S) of 1989 in default is inconsequential on account of the intervening developments which had taken place during the pendency of the said writ petition namely passing of order of regularization of services of the petitioner in C.T. Grade on 6th of February, 1996 and thereafter his absorption in L.T. grade on 12th of October, 1999. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner cannot be permitted to be sustained any further. The order dated 02.01.2017 passed by the Regional Level Committee is thus hereby quashed to the extent it relates to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Hindi in the institution concerned will be reconsiderd by the Regional Level Committee in accordance with law and also taking into account the observations made hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment. At this juncture, Shri Som Kartik, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court an order dated 18th of January, 2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 1188 (S/S) of 2017 (Smt. Shobhna Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others) filed by one Smt. Shobhna Srivastava, whereby the case of the said Smt. Shobhna Srivastava has been ordered to be considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer in terms of the certain judgments of this Court quoted in the said order dated 18th of January, 2017. It is noticeable that the Regional Level Committee while considering the case of the petitioner and passing the impugned order had considered the case of Smt. Shobhna Srivastava as well and her case was also rejected, albeit on different grounds. It is noticeable that the Regional Level Committee while considering the case of the petitioner and passing the impugned order had considered the case of Smt. Shobhna Srivastava as well and her case was also rejected, albeit on different grounds. Since, this Court by means of the order dated 18th of January, 2017 has directed the Regional Level Committee to consider the case of Smt. Shobhna Srivastava for promotion, the case of the petitioner shall also be considered alongwith the case of Smt. Shobhna Srivastava by the Regional Level Committee, as observed above, taking into account the observations made hereinabove in this judgment. The said consideration shall be made by the Regional Level Committee within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order, notwithstanding the fact that in the order dated 18th of January, 2017, passed in Writ Petition No. 1188 (S/S) of 2017, the Regional Level Committee was directed to take decision in the matter of Smt. Shobhna Srivastava within a period of two weeks. This order has been passed in the presence of Shri Manjive Shukla, learned counsel who represented the case of Smt. Shobhna Srivastava in Writ Petition No. 1188 (S/S) of 2017. Both the cases shall be considered simultaneously and appropriate decision shall be taken by the Regional Level Committee as directed above. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.