Allahabad High Court
Masroor Ahmad & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 21 January, 2010
Author: Pankaj Mithal
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1773 of 2010 Petitioner :- Masroor Ahmad & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Syed Wajid Ali Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Chandra Narayan Tripathi Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Heard Sri Syed Wajid Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and Sri Chandra Nayayan Tripathi for respondent no. 2.
The petitioners were selected as Assistant Teacher (Urdu) in the year 1995. However, the said selection was ordered to be cancelled vide order dated 11.10.1995. The order of cancellation of the selection was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 30762 of 1996 (Fatma Praveen and others Vs. State of U.P. & others). The said writ petition was decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated 25.05.2000 and impugned order cancelling the selection was quashed with a further direction to respondents to issue appointment letters to petitioners. The aforesaid judgment and order of the High Court was affirmed in Special Appeal as well as in S. L. P. before the Supreme Court. The review application filed against the said order was also rejected vide order dated 24.03.2003. Thereafter petitioners were given appointments w. e. f. 31.07.2004.
The petitioners made representation before the U.P. Basik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad on 11.06.2008 claiming seniority and all consequential benefits w. e. f. 1995 i. e. the date on which they were declared to be selected. When the aforesaid representation was not decided, they filed another Writ Petition No. 33749 of 2008 ( Masroor Ahmad & others Vs. State of U.P. & others). The said writ petition was disposed of this Court vide order dated 16.07.2008 with the direction to the Secretary of the U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad to decide the representation of petitioners by a reasoned and a speaking order within a time bound period. In pursuance of the above order the representation of the petitioners has been rejected by order dated 18.08.2009 which is impugned in this writ petition.
The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that as the petitioners were selected in the year 1995 but were not allowed to join on account of litigation for which they cannot be blamed and as such their seniority ought to be counted from the date of their selection and not from the date of joining.
The submission is wholly devoid of merit and has no substance. Admittedly, the petitioners have joined service on 31.07.2004. The general rule is that an employee cannot be given seniority from the date prior to his birth i. e. joining service. Therefore, petitioners cannot be given any seniority from any date earlier to the date of their joining. The date of selection of the petitioners is not at all relevant for the purposes of giving seniority to the petitioners.
Even Rule 22 of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 also provides that seniority has to be determined from the date of substantiative appointment. In view of the aforesaid Rule there cannot be two opinions that the petitioners are entitled for seniority from the date of their appointment which in the present case happens to be 31.07.2004.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners next urged that though by the impugned order the representation of the petitioners for claiming seniority w.e.f. date of selection has been rejected but in the body of the order it has been mentioned that untrained teachers shall be entitled to seniority on completion of their training. This aspect of the matter does not require any adjudication in view of the clear language of Rule-22 of the aforesaid rules and the fact that there is no specific direction in this regard in the final order which has been impugned in the writ petition. Any observations in this regard in the order impugned is of no consequence and is not be treated as binding upon the petitioners.
The writ petition has no merit and as such is dismissed summarily with the observation above.
Order Date :- 21.1.2010 RS.