Allahabad High Court
Gauri Shanker Upadhyay Son Of Late Shri ... vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Through The ... on 30 April, 2007
Author: Rakesh Tiwari
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari
JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard Sri P.N. Saxena for the petitioner and Sri O.P. Shukla for the respondents.
2. The petitioner claims seniority over respondent No. 4 on the basis of appointment in Lecturer Grade.
3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on 24.8.1973 in L.T. Grade. He was confirmed on 24.8.1974. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted on ad-hoc basis on 11.9.1994 under 50% quota pending approval by the Commission. The ad-hoc promotion of the petitioner was approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 31.5.1995. On 5.11.2000 the Joint Director of Education directed the District Inspector of Schools to issue directions to the committee of management of the college under Section 14(6) of the U.P. Secondary Education Selection Board Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the basis of decision taken by the regional committee in the matter of the petitioner to give him promotion on substantive basis on the post of Lecturer in Economics after thorough examination. As far as respondent No. 4 is concerned he was appointed as untrained J.T.C. Grade Teacher on 16.9.1972 and was promoted to C.T. Grade Teacher on 1.11.1978 and L.T. Grade on 1.1.1986. He was appointed as Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on 14.7.2001 which was approved by the regional committee on 8.1.2003 from the date of joining, i.e., 14.7.2001.
4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the order of approval passed by the regional committee dated 8.1.2003 the respondent No. 4 has been granted seniority from the date of joining, i.e., 14.7.2001 whereas there is no such order. In so far as approval granted to the petitioner is concerned, he is being treated as junior to respondent No. 4.
5. The petitioner has relied upon the provisions of Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act which provides as under:
3. (1) The Committee of Management of every institution shall cause a seniority list of teachers to be prepared in accordance with the following provisions:
(a) The seniority list shall be prepared separately for each grade of teachers whether permanent or temporary, on any substantive post;
(b) Seniority of teachers in a grade shall be determined on the basis of their substantive appointment in that grade. If two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age;
(bb) Where two or more teachers working in a grade are promoted to the next higher grade on the same date, their seniority inter se shall be determined on the basis of the length of their service to be reckoned from the date of their substantive appointment in the grade from which they are promoted:
Provided that if such length of service is equal, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age.
(c) A teacher in a higher grade shall be deemed to be senior to a teacher in the lower grade irrespective of the length of service;
(d) If a teacher who is placed under suspension is reinstated on his original post, his original seniority in the grade shall not be affected;
(e) Every dispute about the seniority of the teacher shall be referred to the Committee of Management which shall decide the same giving reasons for the decision;
(g)mi[k.M M- ds vk/khu izca/k lfefr ds fofup; ls O;fFkr dksbZ v/;kid ,slk fofup; ,sls v/;kid dks lwfpr fd, tkus ds fnukad ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj lEcaf/kr {ks=h; mi&fk{kk funskd dks vihy dj ldrk gS vkSj vihy ij lEcaf/kr i{kksa dks lquokbZ dk vojlj nsus ds mijkUr mi fk{kk funskd viuk fu.kZ; dkj.kksa lfgr nsxk tks vafre gksxk vkSj izca/k lfefr }kjk dk;kZfUor fd;k tk;sxkA
(g);fn ,d xzsM esa dk;Zjr nks ;k vf/kd v/;kid fdlh ,d gh frfFk ij inksUur fd;s tk;sa rks mudh T;sBrk dk vk/kkj ml xzsM dk lsok&dky gksxk ftlesa os dk;Zjr Fks] ijUrq ;fn lsok dky cjkcj gS rks inksUur dh nkk esa vk;q ds vk/kkj ij T;sBrk fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sxhA Note. - For the convenience of the readers, English translation of sub-regulations (f) and (g) is given hereunder:
(f) Any teacher aggrieved by the decision of the Management Committee under Sub-clause (e) within 15 days of the dale of information of such decision to the teacher, may appeal to concerned Regional Deputy Director and on appeal after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, Deputy Director will give his decision with reasons, which will be final and executed by the Management Committee.
(g) Where two or more teachers working in the same grade are promoted on the same date, their inter se seniority shall be the length of service in that grade in which they were working, but, if the length of service is equal, then in the event of promotion seniority shall be determined on the basis of the age.
(2) The seniority list shall be revised every year and the provisions of Clause (1) shall mutatis mutandis apply to such revision.
6. On the strength of the aforesaid Regulation 3 the learned Counsel for the petitioner claims that as the petitioner was approved by the regional committee on 5.11.2000 and the respondent on 8.2.2003 the petitioner is senior to the respondent.
7. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the seniority list dated 23.6.2003 appended as Annexure 10 to the writ petition was prepared by the Principal of the College which has not been challenged by the petitioner and it has become final. He further submits that the representation dated 22.7.2003 appended as Annexure 1 to the stay vacation application was moved by the petitioner to the Joint Director of Education, Vindhya Mandal, Mirzapur, inter alia, claiming seniority over respondent No. 4.
8. It appears from Annexure 8 to the writ petition that the post of Principal became vacant, as such the petitioner was directed to hold charge of the Acting Principal till a selected candidate from the Commission joins the post under the letter written by the District Inspector of Schools. It has been clearly stated that the petitioner is the senior most teacher and should be given charge. The aforesaid letter dated 28.6.2003 contained in Annexure 8 to the writ petition is as under:
dk;kZy; ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd] ehjtkiqjA Vknsk la[;k ek0&2@ @03&04@ fnukad 26-06-2003 izcU/kd uke ls Jh kadjkJe egkfo|kihB b.Vj dkyst Lh[kM+ fetkZiqjA i;k voxr gksus dk dV djsa fd vkids fo|ky; esa iz/kkukpk;Z dk in fnukad 30-06-2003 dks fjDr gks jgk gSA dk;kZy; fo|ky; vfHkys[kkuqlkj Jh xkSjhkadj mik/;k; fo|ky; ds ofjB izoDrk gSA mDr ds e esa vkidks funsZfkr fd;k tkrk gS fd fo|ky; iz/kkukpk;Z dk in Hkkj Jh mik/;k; dks vk;ksx ls p;fur vH;FkhZ ds vkus rd lkSaius dk dV djsaA mUgsa izHkkjh iz/kkukpk;Z dk vfrfjDr osru kkluknskkuqlkj ns; ugha gksxkA g0 vLiV 26-6-2003 ;ke ukjk;.k jke ftyk fo|kyk; fujh{kd] fetkZiqjA
9. It further appears from the record that the dispute of seniority was referred by the committee of management under Regulation 3(e) to the Joint Director of Education by resolution dated 14.7.2001. The position at this stage is that the representation of the petitioner dated 22.7.2003 is pending In so far as the seniority referred to the Joint Director of Education on the "representation of the petitioner dated 14.1.2000 is concerned, the petitioner has been declared senior vide seniority list dated 23.6.2003. According to Regulation 3 the seniority of the petitioner ought to have been given from 5.11.2000, i.e., from the date the regional committee has approved the regular promotion of the petitioner in L.T. Grade. As the representation of the petitioner is still pending, the impugned order dated 18.7.2003 passed by the Joint Director which records that prima facie respondent No. 4 appears to be senior is quashed. He is directed to re-assess the seniority dispute in the light of the provisions of Regulation 3 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 22.7.2003 for determination of inter-se seniority between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and will pass appropriate order regarding attestation of signatures etc. If any of the parties is aggrieved by the order that party may approach to the civil court.
10. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.