Legal Grounds for the Writ Petition

1.Violation of Rule 14 and 40 of U.P. Secondary Education Service

Selection Board 1988
Ground:The impugned order dated 26.06.2024 rejected the Petitioner’s
representation for promotion on the grounds that the record for promotion
was not forwarded by the management of the institute (Opposite Party No.
5). This is a direct violation of Rule 40, which mandates the management to
forward such records for consideration. The rejection of the Petitioner's
representation for promotion based on the absence of forwarded promotion
records by Opposite Party no. 5 is a violation of Rule 14 of U.P. Secondary
Education Service Selection Board Rules 1988.
Supporting Fact:The management's refusal to forward the record was
conveyed through an order dated 21.04.2024, which the Petitioner had
earlier challenged under Writ-A 4437 of 2024.

2. Arbitrary and Capricious Action

Ground: Because the impugned order is arbitrary in nature as it ignores the
Petitioner’s legitimate claim for promotion based on seniority and
qualification. Moreover, Respondents neglected to consider Section 31 of the
Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act 2023, leading to
a flawed decision not aligned with legal provisions and statutes.
Supporting Fact:The Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled that there is no
reservation quota in this context, rendering the decision to reject the
Petitioner’s representation unjust and baseless.

3. Non-Compliance with Court Directions

Ground: Because the Respondent authorities failed to comply with the
Hon’ble High Court’s direction dated 31.05.2024, which mandated
consideration of the Petitioner’s promotion with a reasoned and speaking
order.
Supporting Fact:The Petitioner submitted a representation on 15.06.2024,
following the court's order. However, the Respondents passed the impugned
transfer order dated 28.06.2024 without addressing the Petitioner’s
representation, indicating non-compliance with judicial directions.
4.Unlawful Transfer and Ignorance of Promotional Quota
Ground: Because the impugned transfer order dated 28.06.2024 issued by
the Additional Director of Secondary Education, U.P., unlawfully bypasses
the promotional quota, which should prioritize internal candidates like the
Petitioner.
Supporting Fact: The post of Lecturer in Economics, which became vacant
due to the retirement of Shri Ram Gopal Shukla on 31.03.2024, should
have been filled through internal promotion. Instead, the Respondent
authorities opted for a direct transfer, undermining the Petitioner’s seniority
and right to be considered for promotion first.

5. Denial of Right to Fair Consideration

Ground: Because the Respondent No. 5’s refusal to forward the Petitioner’s
requisition for promotion to the District Inspector of Schools deprived the
Petitioner of his right to fair consideration for the promotional post.
Supporting Fact: The Petitioner, being the senior-most teacher, is entitled to
be considered for promotion to the vacant post. The management’s denial,
followed by the impugned transfer order, effectively nullifies the Petitioner’s
legitimate expectation for career advancement.

6. Administrative Malfeasance:-
Because the actions of the Respondents constitute administrative
malfeasance, as they have acted beyond their legal authority and failed to
uphold the principles of natural justice.
Supporting Fact: The Respondent No. 2’s decision to fill the post through
transfer rather than promotion, despite the Petitioner’s physical presence
and submission of representation, reflects a disregard for due process and
fairness.

ADDITIONAL GROUNDS:-
1. Failure to Consider Seniority: The Petitioner asserts their entitlement
to promotion based on seniority and fulfillment of criteria under Rule 10
of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules 1988, which
reserves 50% of Lecturer posts for promotion.
 2. Legal Obligations Ignored: Opposite Party no. 5 failed to make a
requisition for the promotion, despite the post falling vacant and the
Petitioner fulfilling eligibility requirements.

3. Neglect of Legal Precedents: The Respondents' actions overlook legal

precedents, including the judgment in Siddhartha Shekhar Mishra vs.
State of UP, which supports the Petitioner's right to promotion based on
service and qualifications.

4. Failure to Apply Relevant Laws: The Respondents neglected to consider

Section 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission
Act 2023, leading to a flawed decision not aligned with legal provisions
and statutes.

CASE LAWS:

1. Smt. Basanti Gaur vs. Regional Inspectress of Girl's School, VII

Region, Gorakhpur and others, 1987 SCC Online All 115:-

The Full Bench in Smt. Basanti Gaur (supra) observed as under in

para 5 to 8 of the judgement:-

"5. For appreciating the question raised, it will now be necessary to

examine the relevant statutory provisions. Clauses (1), (2) and (3) of
Regulation 6 read as follows:

"(1) Where any vacancy in the lecturer's grade in the L.T. Grade as
determined under Regulation 6, is to be filled by promotion, all
teachers working in the L.T. or 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.

(2) Selection for promotion to the next higher grade shall be made on
the basis of service standing, achievements in service, academic
qualifications and integrity.
 (3) Subject to Clause (2) where more than one teacher in the L.T.
grade are eligible for promotion to the post of lecturer in any subject
preference shall be given to the teacher who is senior most amongst
them in service in that grade."

2. Rajendra Kumar vs. District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad

and others, 2016 (1) ADJ 58, has taken a similar view in para 15
and 16 of the judgment, which are reproduced hereinafter:-

15. It is no doubt true that Regulation 6 contained in Chapter II of

the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,
1921 did provide that a teacher to be promoted should have
experience of teaching in the concerned subject and the Full Bench
in Basanti Gaur and the Division Bench in Laxmi Narain Yadav
also observed that a teacher having experience of teaching in the
concerned subject should be recruited but in the present case we
required to interpret Rule 14 (1) of the 1998 Rules. As noted above,
Rule 9 (1) of the 1983 Rules initially provided that a teacher should
have the requisite experience in the subject concerned but on 1
July 1983 an amendment was in the 1983 Rules and the
requirement of having five years experience in the concerned
subject was omitted. This deliberate omission, in our opinion,
cannot be ignored while interpreting Rule 14 (1) of the 1998 Rules.
This apart, as noticed above, such a requirement of having five
years teaching experience in the concerned subject was not
contained in successor 1995 Rules. The contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant that this omission was caused because of
the declaration of law by the Full Bench in Basanti Gaur cannot be
accepted.