JUDGMENT : (Vikas Budhwar, J.) 1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who appears for respondents No. 1 and 2, Sri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel who appears for respondent No. 3 and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 4. 2. Since affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the learned counsel for the parties do not propose to file any further affidavits, thus, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage. 3. The facts of this case shorn off unnecessary details as worded in the writ petition are that the third respondent, Sarswati Shiksha Sadan Intermediate College Marrron, Handia, District Prayagraj (in short respondent institution) is a recognized and aided institution under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the provisions of Uttar Pradesh (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 as well as Uttar Pradesh High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 are applicable. 4. As per the writ petitioner, Jeet Lal Saroj son of Sri Ram Shiromani Saroj, he was selected and appointed as Lecturer (Sanskrit) pursuant to the recruitment exercise undertaken by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board against the Advertisement No. 1 of 2009 and the writ petitioner was accorded placement in Maharana Pratap Inter College Ram Dayalganj, District Jaunpur by virtue of the letter dated 08.12.2010. The writ petitioner claims to have joined the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) in Maharana Pratap Inter College, Ram Dayalganj, District Jaunpur on 04.01.2011. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that on his request, he was transferred from Maharana Pratap Inter College Ram Dayalganj, District Jaunpur to the third respondent, Sarswati Shiksha Sadan Intermediate College Marrron, Handia, District Prayagraj, by virtue of the transfer order dated 28.06.2019 passed by the Additional Director of Education (Madhyamic), U.P., Prayagraj and the petitioner assumed the charge on the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) in the third respondent institution on 04.07.2019. In para 8 of the writ petition, it has been pleaded that fourth respondent Lalmani son of Hub Lal was selected as Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) pursuant to the recommendation of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board dated 05.07.2006 and the consequential letter of the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah dated 19.08.2006. In para 9 of the writ petition, it has been further asserted that the fourth respondent was issued appointment letter on 05.10.2006 pursuant whereto he joined as Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) in Zila Panchayat Inter College, Haivara, Etawah. 5. Pleadings further reveal that the fourth respondent preferred an application seeking transfer in the third respondent institution in pursuance thereof he was transferred on 07.01.2016 as Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) in the third respondent institution. In para 11 of the writ petition, further pleadings have been made that the fourth respondent was accorded joining as Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) in the third respondent institution on 01.02.2016. According to the writ petitioner, the fourth respondent preferred an application on 21.09.2018 for claiming Lecturer pay and Lecturer post in pursuance of the Government Orders dated 28.02.1990 and 25.10.2000, however, the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj by order dated 26.11.2018 declined to grant Lecturer pay and Lecturer post on the premise that the fourth respondent was not fulfilling the conditions as stipulated in Government Orders in question. However, as per the writ petitioner, the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj accorded selection grade pay to the fourth respondent on 18.07.2018. Aggrieved against the non-according of Lecturer pay and Lecturer post since 05.10.2016 the fourth respondent is stated to have approached the SC/ST Commission while drawing proceedings, pursuant whereto the SC/ST Commission sought clarification from the Director of Education (Madhyamic), U.P., Prayagraj and thereafter by virtue of the order dated 14.05.2023 the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj entitled the fourth respondent to be conferred the benefits of Lecturer pay and Lecturer post with effect from 05.10.2016. 6. Questioning the order dated 14.05.2023 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj, second respondent, making the fourth respondent entitled for Lecturer pay and Lecturer post in pursuance of the Government Orders dated 28.02.1990 and 25.10.2000, the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 7. 6. Questioning the order dated 14.05.2023 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj, second respondent, making the fourth respondent entitled for Lecturer pay and Lecturer post in pursuance of the Government Orders dated 28.02.1990 and 25.10.2000, the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 7. While entertaining the writ petition, this Court on 11.07.2023 proceeded to pass the following orders.- “Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Santosh Kumar learned Standing Counsel who appears for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pradeep Srivastava, who appears for the fourth respondent. Sri Ojha has sought to argue that the order dated 14.5.2023 passed by the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj proceeds on misconception of facts and law particularly in view of the fact that admittedly in the order in question there is a recital to the effect that earlier the claim of the fourth respondent was turned down by the District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj on 26.11.2018 according to which it was held that the fourth respondent is not entitled to be conferred with the benefit of Lecturer Pay/Lecturer Post since 5.10.2016 however without there being any power of review the order has been sought to be reviewed that too on the behest of SC/ST Commission in this regard. He further submits that as per the recital contained in the order in question the fourth respondent was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) in Zila Panchayat Inter College Haivara, Etawah on 5.10.2006 and he on 7.1.2016 was posted in the third respondent institution and he was accorded joining on 1.2.2016 as Assistant Teacher (Physical Education). Hence in the wake of the Government Order dated 25th October, 2000 which even in fact takes note of the earlier Government Order dated 20th February, 1990 the twin conditions stands applicable with regard to the fact that a teacher is to impart education to the students of Class-11 and 12 for a period more than 10 years and also getting the pay scale of Lecturer is only eligible to be conferred with the said benefit. It is further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire exercise has been tailored in order to give benefit to the fourth respondent on the dictates and the directions of the SC/ST Commission itself. Sri Bhushan on the other hand submits that, firstly, the writ petitioner has no locus to maintain the present petition as by virtue of grant of the said benefits only re-designation /up-gradation has been done with even in fact would not at this present moment given any legal injury to cloth the writ petitioner to put legal action into motion. He has further referred to the order impugned while inviting attention towards the second last paragraph so as to contend that might be the order do not happily worded and the benefit has been given to the fourth respondent on the basis of the benefits accorded to Bacchu Lal and even in fact the said benefits have been accorded to number of incumbents and no illegality whatsoever can be pointed out. Sri Ojha on the other hand submits that the question of legal injury so sought to be propounded by the fourth respondent is of no benefit to him as once a benefit is not to be accorded as per the Act and the Rules framed therein under and the Government Order in question then the said benefits become void ab initio from the very inception as tomorrow on the strength of the said order now the fourth respondent shall stay his claim to become Principal and get benefits in that regard. Matter requires consideration. Since the third respondent Committee of Management is not before this court the learned counsel for the petitioner shall serve the third respondent by both ways within a period of three day. Affidavit of compliance be filed before the next date. Learned Standing Counsel as well as counsel appearing for the respondents shall file their respective responses within 10 days. Three days time is allowed to the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit. Put up this case as a fresh case on 21.7.2023. Since the matter pertains to Prayagraj itself and legal question is also involved so it is expected that the learned Standing counsel and the respondents shall file their response before the next date. Three days time is allowed to the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit. Put up this case as a fresh case on 21.7.2023. Since the matter pertains to Prayagraj itself and legal question is also involved so it is expected that the learned Standing counsel and the respondents shall file their response before the next date. Government Order dated 22nd February, 1990 and set of documents submitted by learned counsels is retained on record as Appendix-1 and 2.” 8. Pursuant to the order dated 11.07.2023, the order sheet depicts that the notices were issued to the third respondent since the first and second respondents were represented by the learned Standing Counsel and the fourth respondent by its counsel. A counter affidavit has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel who appears for the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj sworn by him on 20.07.2023. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent, Committee of Management, Sarswati Shiksha Sadan Intermediate College Marrron, Handia, District Prayagraj to which a rejoinder affidavit is available on record. A short counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent and in reply thereto a short rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. 9. As noticed above, the learned counsel for the rival parties do not propose to file any further affidavit, thus, the matter has been taken up for final disposal. 10. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for the writ petitioner while assailing the order dated 14.05.2023 has submitted that the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj, second respondent cannot be sustained even for a moment on various counts, firstly, the Government Orders dated 28.02.1990 and 25.10.2000 is not applicable in the case of the fourth respondent as the fourth respondent became eligible and suitable for grant of Lecturer pay and Lecturer post the issuance of the said Government Orders and in view of the specific clause contained in the Government Order dated 25.10.2000 eligibility is to be obtained prior or on the date of issuance of the Government Order dated 25.10.2000 and since the fourth respondent attained eligibility post issuance of the Government Order dated 25.10.2000, thus, the fourth respondent is not entitled to the benefits. Secondly, earlier also by virtue of the order dated 26.11.2018 the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj had declined to grant Lecturer pay and Lecturer post to the fourth respondent being non-eligible for the same, thus, in view of no change in the circumstances the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj had no power to review its own order, thirdly, the order impugned in the writ petition passed by the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools has been passed at the behest and the dictates of the SC/ST Commission as there has been no independent application of mind, fourthly, merely because some of the Assistant Teachers have been made entitled to the Lecturer pay and Lecturer grade in pursuance of the Government Orders dated 28.02.1990 and 25.10.2000 illegally would not be a ground to accord and extend the said benefit to the fourth respondent, fifthly, the fourth respondent even otherwise is not eligible and qualified for being appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) in that regard. 11. Elaborating the said submission, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the Government Order dated 28.02.1990 granting pay scale in the case of C.T. Grade Teacher subject to suitability and eligibility as L.T. Grade and L.T. Grade Teacher to Lecturer which stood followed in the subsequent Government Order dated 25.10.2000 does not imply that the said benefit is to be granted for the time immemorial, however, the Government Order dated 25.10.2000 contained a specific stipulation that the eligibility is to be obtained by an Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) till/on the date of issuance of the Government Order dated 25.10.2000, since the fourth respondent as per his own saying was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) on 05.10.2006 and one of the conditions was 10 years of continuous uninterrupted service coupled with the grant of the pay scale of Lecturer was a mandatory condition for grant of Lecturer post but as the fourth respondent obtained the said eligibility post issuance of the Government Order dated 25.10.2000 in the year 2016 i.e., 05.10.2016 the fourth respondent is not entitled to the said benefits. 12. 12. Sri Ojha, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner in order to buttress his submission that the said facility/benefit was available to the Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) as one time measure has sought to rely upon the judgment in Writ A No. 43794 of 2011 (Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others) decided on 14.12.2011 followed in Writ A No. 16881 of 2012 (Bani Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others) decided on 07.02.2019. He also relies upon the judgment in the case of Shiv Poojan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2019 (6) ADJ 654 . 13. Additionally, it is being sought to be argued on behalf of the writ petitioner that there is no concept of negative equality as Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not permit it but to the contrary forbids it and further it has been argued that the order passed by the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj is bereft of any reasons which can be said to be within the four corners of law and according to him, the order impugned in the writ petition be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the second respondent to pass a fresh order. Though an attempt has also been made by the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner questioning the appointment of the writ petitioner as Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) on the ground that the fourth respondent is not eligible and qualified for the said post but pleadings to the said effect are missing in the writ petition and it sought to be developed in the rejoinder affidavit. 14. Countering the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi has sought to argue that the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj dated 14.05.2023 is perfectly followed in accordance with law and no fault whatsoever can be attributed in this regard. 14. Countering the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi has sought to argue that the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj dated 14.05.2023 is perfectly followed in accordance with law and no fault whatsoever can be attributed in this regard. He submits that the Government Order dated 28.02.1990 followed in the Government Order dated 25.10.2000 clearly applies in the case of the fourth respondent as according to him, the said Government Order cannot be interpreted in such a manner so as to exclude those Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) whose appointment was valid since inception but in view of the fact that no formal Government Order has been issued specifically extending the benefits, as from the conduct of the State Government, it is very much clear that the State Government is extending the said benefits while granting Lecturer pay and Lecturer post to the Assistant Teachers who have obtained eligibility even post issuance of the Government Order dated 25.10.2000. In a nutshell, the argument is that the fourth respondent is eligible in all respects as the conditions precedent in the Government Order dated 25.10.2000 stood fulfilled at the end of the fourth respondent. It has also been argued on behalf of the fourth respondent that, in case, the logic of the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner is taken into face value then it would create havoc and undesired results particularly when the future of the Assistant Teachers (Physical Education) would be kept in dark and uncertainty. Submission is that once the fourth respondent qualifies the eligibility test as provided in the Government Orders then clause 6 of the Government Order dated 25.10.2000 is to be ignored in that regard. 15. Much emphasis has been laid down by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent that the writ petitioner has even otherwise no locus to institute and to maintain the present proceedings in view of the fact that the writ petitioner sustains no legal injury as of now as mere grant of Lecturer post and Lecturer pay scale would not cause any legal injury so as to maintain the present proceedings. 16. 16. Contention of the learned counsel for the fourth respondent is that grant of Lecturer post and Lecturer pay scale are the individual aspects confining to the benefits being bestowed to a particular teacher and the same cannot possibly cause an injury as it is not a case wherein at the present stage any seniority is being sought to be disturbed or any issue of promotion is involved particularly at a point the writ petition is being preferred by the writ petitioner. He, thus, submits that the writ petition be dismissed with cost. 17. Sri Awasthi, learned counsel who appears for the fourth respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment in Special Appeal No. 48 of 2020 (Smt. Krishna Shri Gupta Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others) decided on 11.02.2020 and Writ A No. 49341 of 2008 (Sangam Lal Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 05.10.2012. 18. Sri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel who appears for the third respondent, Committee of Management has supported the case of the fourth respondent and he adopts the submission of the learned counsel for the fourth respondent. He, however, while drawing attention towards the counter affidavit filed by him seeks to argue that Annexure 2 at page 18 is a document which happens to be the certificate of Zila Panchayat Inter College Haivara, Etawah which shows that the fourth respondent had been teaching XI and XII class. According to Sri Dwivedi, who appears for the third respondent, the benefits which have been accorded to the fourth respondent in pursuance of the Government Orders dated 28.02.1990 and 25.10.2000 has been extended to many Assistant Teachers and he, thus, relies upon Annexure 4 at page 27 of the paper book. 19. Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi, learned Standing Counsel who appears for the first and second respondents has argued that the order of the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj cannot be faulted in any manner whatsoever as the same has been passed in furtherance to the Government Orders dated 28.02.1990 and 25.10.2000 and the fourth respondent is entitled to the benefits which has been made available to him. 20. Before embarking upon an inquiry with regard to the legality and the validity of the order passed by the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj it would be apposite to notice the Government Orders governing the filed. 20. Before embarking upon an inquiry with regard to the legality and the validity of the order passed by the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj it would be apposite to notice the Government Orders governing the filed. Government Order dated 28.02.1990 d{kk] O;k;ke f'k{kdksa dk osru izs"kd] Jh 'kjfoUnq] la;qDr lfpo] mRrj izns'k 'kkluA lsok esa] f'k{kk funs'kd] mRrj izns'k y[kuÅ@bykgkckn f'k{kk ¼8½ vuqHkkx y[kuÅ fnukad Qjojh 28] 1990 fo"k; & osru iqujh{k.k lfefr] mRrj izns'k] 1989 dh laLrqfr;ksa ij fy;s x;s fu.kZ;kuqlkj v'kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa@b.Vj dkystksa esa ‘kSf{kd inksa ij iqujhf{kr osruekuks dh Lohd`frA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d ‘kklukns'k la[;k 4749@15&8&89@3089@89 fnukad 4&vDVwcj 1989 ds iSjk&3 ds vuqdze esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd dyk] O;k;ke] Hkk"kk] x`g foKku] f'kYi laxhr] foHkk"kk] isafVax Vad.k] vk'kqfyfi rFkk dzkV fo"k;ksa dks d{kk 9&10 esa iढ+kus okys lhŒ VhŒ xzsM esa fu/kkZfjr vgZrk ds v/khu fu;qDr v/;kidksa dks tc d{kk 9&10 esa iढ+krs gq, 10 o”kZ iwjs gks tk;s arks mUgas ,yŒVhŒ xzsM ds lk/kkj.k osrueku laŒ 1400&40&1800&nŒ jksŒ&50&2300 fn;k tk;A 2- mDr fo"k;ksa dks d{kk 11&12 esa iढ+kus okys ,yŒVhŒ xszM ds ,sls v?;kidksa dks ftudh fu;qfDr fu/kkZfjr vgZrk ds v/khu gqbZ gS& tc d{kk 11&12 esa iढ+krs gq, 10 o"kZ iwjs gks tk;s arks mUgs izoDrk osrueku :Œ 1600&50&2300&nŒ jksŒ&60&2600 fn;k tk;A 3- Hkfo"; esa mi;qZDr fo"k;ksa dks iढ+kus okys v/;kidksa dh ,yŒVhŒ ,oa izoDrk osrueku esa fu;qfDr ds fy, lEcfU/kr O;olk; dh vgZrk ds lkFk dze'k% Lukrd@LukrdksRrj vgZrk fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gSA 4- ;s vkns'k foRr ¼osru vk;ksx½ vuqHkkx&2 ds v'kkldh; la[;k&osŒvkŒ¼2½ 55@10&90 fnukad 28 Qjojh] 1990 esa izkIr mudh lgefr ls tkjh fd;s tk jgs gSaA Hkonh; ¼'kjfoUnq½ la;qDr lfpo layXu izkbejh f'k{kdksa dk osru la[;k % 1120@15&8&90@3087@89 izs"kd] Jh 'kjfoUnq] la;qDr lfpo] mRrj izns'k 'kkluA Government Order dated 25.10.2000 21. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 22. Undisputedly, the third respondent institution, Sarswati Shiksha Sadan Intermediate College Marrron, Handia, District Prayagraj is an Inter College governed under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, Uttar Pradesh Act No. 5 of 1982 and the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 24 of 1971 stand applicable. 22. Undisputedly, the third respondent institution, Sarswati Shiksha Sadan Intermediate College Marrron, Handia, District Prayagraj is an Inter College governed under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, Uttar Pradesh Act No. 5 of 1982 and the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 24 of 1971 stand applicable. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioner has been appointed as Lecturer (Sanskrit) in Maharana Pratap Inter College Ram Dayalganj, District Jaunpur on 04.01.2011 and he was transferred to the third respondent institution as Lecturer (Sanskrit) and he joined on 04.07.2019. Likewise, the fourth respondent was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) in Zila Panchayat Inter College Haivara, District Etawah on 05.10.2006 and he was transferred on 07.01.2016 and he joined on 01.02.2016 as Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) in the third respondent institution. The bone of contention between the rival parties is whether the fourth respondent is entitled to be conferred with the benefit of Lecturer pay scale and Lecturer post completion of 10 years of service in the light of Government Orders dated 28.02.1990 and 25.10.2000. Though Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel who appears for the fourth respondent has vehemently argued that the writ petitioner has no locus standi to institute and maintain the present petition as he is not a person aggrieved in view of the fact that the fourth respondent has only been conferred that the benefit of Lecturer pay scale and Lecturer post. The question of locus standi is to be decided at the first instance, however, in order to arrive at the conclusion as to whether the writ petitioner has any locus to maintain the present proceedings this Court in the present case is to bestow its consideration upon the backgrounds and the sequence of the facts then only a conclusion can be arrived at. 23. Basically, there are two Government Orders first, 28.02.1990 and second, 25.10.2000. So far as the Government Order dated 28.02.1990 is concerned it spelt out in the subject column that an approval has been granted pursuant to the recommendations and the acceptance of the Pay Commission by the State of Uttar Pradesh of the year 1989 with regard to Non-Governmental Aided Higher Secondary Schools/Inter Colleges with regard to the teaching post, with respect to revision of the pay scales. Thus, the said Government Order talks about revision of the pay scale. Thus, the said Government Order talks about revision of the pay scale. According to the said Government Order in terms of para 3 of the Government Order dated 04.10.1989 the C.T. Grade Teachers who had been teaching Arts, Physical Training, Language, Home Science, Craft, Music, Tankan, Stenography and Craft in IX-X Classes and were having required qualifications after completion of 10 years of services were made entitled to the pay scale of L.T. Grade, Rs. 1400-40-1800-DA-50- 2300, the second clause of the Government Order dated 28.02.1990 further provided that those L.T. Grade Teachers who had eligibility and who have been teaching XI-XII Classes for the period of 10 years they were to be accorded Lecturer pay scale of Rs. 1600-50-2300-EB- 60-2600. Clause (3) of the said Government Order further provided that in future the qualifications with respect to the L.T. Grade and Lecturers would be graduate/post graduate. Primarily, the Government Order dated 28.02.1990 provided for pay scale, however, subsequently another Government Order was issued on 25.10.2000 providing for the grant of designation as “Lecturer” to the teachers who were teaching Arts, Physical Training, Literature, Crafts etc. in Non-Governmental Aided inter Colleges. The said Government Order was issued in context of the letter No. (1)/Shi./8744/2000-2001 dated 4th September, 2000 whereby His Excellency, The Governor was pleased to accord the designation of Lecturer subject to various terms and conditions to the teachers who have consistently been teaching Arts, Physical Training, Language, Crafts etc. in Inter College for 10 years in Non-Governmental Aided Secondary Schools (Inter Colleges) recognized upto intermediate level with the subjects and are drawing pay scale of lecturers as such. Besides the other clauses of the Government Order dated 25.10.2000, clause (6) further stipulated that the benefits with regard to the above noted subjects was confined to those teachers who were fulfilling the eligibility on the date of issuance of the Government Order dated 25.10.2000. 24. Now the principal question which falls for consideration before this Court is whether the fourth respondent was entitled to be conferred the benefit of the designation “Lecturer” or not. It is not in dispute that the fourth respondent was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) on 05.10.2006, thus, in order to attain eligibility for being conferred the benefits of Lecturer pay scale/Lecturer post one of the necessary eligibility was that a teacher is to consistently teach Arts, Physical Training, Language, Craft etc. It is not in dispute that the fourth respondent was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) on 05.10.2006, thus, in order to attain eligibility for being conferred the benefits of Lecturer pay scale/Lecturer post one of the necessary eligibility was that a teacher is to consistently teach Arts, Physical Training, Language, Craft etc. in intermediate classes for 10 years in Non-Governmental and Aided Secondary School (Inter Colleges) upto the Intermediate level subjects and is drawing pay scale of Lecturers as such. 25. A conjoint reading of various provisions contained under the Government Orders dated 28.02.1990 and 25.10.2000 would clearly show that the teacher in the said subjects is to teach in the institution which is recognized at the Intermediate Level and imparting education continuously for the period of 10 years in the Intermediate Classes that too on the date of issuance of the Government Order dated 25.10.2000. In order to analyze the fact as to whether the fourth respondent satisfied the conditions or not, this Court is to remind itself to the chronology and the dates and events of the working (teaching) of the fourth respondent. Undisputed facts reveal that the fourth respondent was appointed on 05.10.2006 as Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) in Zila Panchayat Inter College Haivara, Etawah he was accorded joining in the third respondent institution on 01.02.2016 pursuant to the transfer order dated 07.01.2016 as Assistant Teacher (Physical Education). By the order impugned in the writ petition, the writ petitioner has been accorded pay scale of Lecturer and designation/post of Lecturer with effect from 05.10.2016. Apparently the 10 years of continuous services while teaching in an intermediate class as well as designation as a Lecturer is to be seen in the light of clause (6) of the Government Order dated 25.10.2000. The net logical conclusion which stands arrived is that the writ petitioner as per the impugned order attains eligibility on 05.10.2016 which is post issuance of the Government Order dated 25.10.2000, thus, clause (6) of the Government Order dated 25.10.2000 would come in the way of the fourth respondent making him ineligible for according of the said benefits. 26. Nonetheless, the law in the background of the Government Orders dated 28.02.1990 and 25.10.2000 has been subject matter of scrutiny and interpretation by this Court in the case of Vijay Bahadur Singh (supra) wherein the following was observed:- "16. 26. Nonetheless, the law in the background of the Government Orders dated 28.02.1990 and 25.10.2000 has been subject matter of scrutiny and interpretation by this Court in the case of Vijay Bahadur Singh (supra) wherein the following was observed:- "16. Government Order dated 25.10.2000 states that in all those non Government aided colleges where Lecturers posts in the subject of Arts, Physical Training, Language, Music etc. has not been created(LT Grade) post shall be upgraded as Lecturer's post and those Teachers who possess requisite qualification for the post of Lecturer shall be appointed on such upgraded post. However, this benefit would be available only to such Teachers who have been imparting education in Class XI and XII for the last ten years, had completed satisfactory services and, have also been granted Lecturer's pay scale personally. Further the aforesaid benefit has been confined to only those Teachers who have completed requisite eligibility on the date of issuance of Government Order dated 25.10.2000. It also provides that seniority of such Teachers would count only from the date on which person so promoted as Lecturer joins a promoted post. His previous service shall be treated to be a service rendered as LT Grade Teacher and no benefit shall be accorded for the purpose of selection and promotional pay scale on Lecturer's post. 17. Even if what is said by respondent no.5 is treated to be correct, it is evident that on the date of issuance of Government Order dated 25.10.2000 he had not completed ten years of service even as Assistant Teacher(LT Grade) (P.T.I.) and, therefore, para 6 of Government Order dated 25.10.2000 makes him ineligible for claiming any benefit under the said Government Order . Para 6 reads as under : ^^6- mDr fo"k;ksa ds dsoy mUgha v/;kidksa dks izoDrk in uke vuqeU; gksxk] tks bl vkns'k ds tkjh gksus dh frfFk rd fu/kkZfjr vgZrk iwjh dj pqds gksaA** "The designation of Lecturer shall be admissible only to those Teachers of the said subjects who have acquired the prescribed eligibility/qualification by the date of issuance of this Order." (English Translation by Court) 18. Para 6 refers to the subjects mentioned in Government Order , namely Arts, Physical Training, Language, Craft etc. Para 6 refers to the subjects mentioned in Government Order , namely Arts, Physical Training, Language, Craft etc. Respondent no.5 having been appointed on 29.1.1991, even in LT Grade had not completed ten years of service, hence question of imparting education for ten years to Class XI and XII on 25.10.2000 does not arise at all. This aspect, it appears, has not at all been considered by respondents No. 3 and 4 while extending giving benefit of the said Government Order to respondent no.5. Moreover respondent no.5 was Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) and, therefore, could not have imparted education to the students of Class XI and XII. The very first paragraph of Government Order dated 25.10.2000 shows that it is applicable to those teachers who are imparting education to Intermediate students for the last ten years and are already in Lecturer's pay scale only. They have been given the benefit of designation of Lecturer with certain conditions and restrictions mentioned therein. On the date of issuance of Government Order dated 25.10.2000 neither respondent no.5 was discharging duties as Teacher imparting education to Intermediate class students for ten years nor was working in Lecturer's pay scale. The very opening paragraph of Government Order dated 25.8.2000 reads as under : ^^mi;qZDr fo"k;d funs'kky; i=kad la[;k & ¼1½@f'kŒ@8744@2000&2001] fnukad 4 flrEcj] 2000 ds lUnHkZ esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd v'kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr ,sls ek/;fed fo