Allahabad High Court
Ramautar Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Others on 28 January, 2010
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4016 of 2010 Petitioner :- Ramautar Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Ajendra Kumar,Dwijendra Prasad Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Satya Veer Singh Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and Sri Satyaveer Singh, Advocate for the respondents.
The dispute of seniority on the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade is the issue raised in this writ petition. The Regional Joint Director of Education, Aligarh has held that the respondent no. 5 having been appointed in L.T. Grade from 01.07.1989 is senior since the date of appointment of petitioner in L.T. Grade is 01.08.1989.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without giving him any opportunity of hearing but he could not dispute from the averments or from any other fact that the respondent no. 5 was given L.T. Grade w.e.f. 01.07.1989 while the petitioner was given L.T. Grade w.e.f. 01.08.1989 and the same was not disputed by him before any forum at any point of time for the last more than one and half decade. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of appointment in L.T. Grade with respect to respondent no. 5 is on account of forgery but he failed to point out from the record that the fact that respondent no. 5 was getting salary in L.T. Grade was never in his knowledge for the last more than one and half decade and if this fact was already in the knowledge of petitioner and he failed to assail the same in a reasonable time, he cannot be allowed to raise the same after such a long time. It is no doubt true that in the matter of seniority all concerned parties must be afforded opportunity of hearing but here the conclusion drawn by authorities concerned is not shown to be perverse. The mere denial of opportunity does not make obligatory upon this Court to interfere with the impugned order. In the absence of any prejudice caused to the petitioner and the decision passed by the authorities concerned being the only possible decision, this Court find no reason to interfere. The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed.
Dt/-28.01.2010 AK-4016/10