VENKATARAMIAH - (1.) SPECIAL leave granted. The appeal is heard.
(2.) THE appellant, Sudama Singh, and Respondent 1,Nath Saran Singh, were both appointed as Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade in Gandhi Inter college, Chilkahar, District Ballia with effect from the same date, i.e., 8/07/1967 and were placed on probation for one year. Respondent I was promoted as Lecturer in Hindi on ad hoc basis with effect from Mar. 1, 1976 by the Committee of Management and this action of the Committee of Management received the approval of the District Inspector of Schools on Oct. 5, 1976. On Nov. 20, 1976 the District Inspector of Schools again made an order promoting both the appellant and Respondent 1 as Lecturers in Civics and Hindi respectively. THE promotions, referred to above, had been made on an ad hoc basis. Likewise a large number of teachers, who were working in the educational institutions which were governed by the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') had been appointed or promoted on an ad hoc basis and the question of regularisation of their services was engaging the attention of the State Government during the relevant time. As a consequence of the decision of the State Government an ordinance entitled the Uttar Pradesh Education Laws Amendment Ordinance, 1977 (U.P. Ordinance No.5 of 1977) was promulgated on 21/04/1977. By the said Ordinance a large number of provisions in four of the laws in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh concerning education were amended. One of the laws which was amended by the said Ordinance was the Act. By the Ordinance a new provision, namely, S. 16GG was introduced into the Act. THE Ordinance was replaced by the Uttar Pradesh Education Laws Amendment Act, 1977. S. 16GG, which was introduced into the Act by the Ordinance, was allowed to remain in operation by the Uttar Pradesh Education Laws Amendment Act, 1977. THE relevant part of S. 16GG of the Act reads as follows: "16GG. Regularization of appointment of ad hoc teachers- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Ss. 16E, 16F and 16FF every teacher of an institution appointed between Aug. 18, 1975 and Sept. 30, 1976 (both dates inclusive) on ad hoc basis against a clear vacancy and possessing prescribed qualifications or having been exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall, with effect from the date of commencement of this section, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity, provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of his appointment up to the commencement of this section ... (2) Every teacher deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity under sub-sec. (1) shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of commencement of this section ... " (Underlining by us) Section 16GG of the Act, which is reproduced above, provided that notwithstanding anything contained in Ss. 16E, 16F and 16FF, every teacher of an institution appointed between Aug. 18, 1975 and Sept. 30, 1976 (both dates inclusive) on ad hoc basis against a clear vacancy and possessing prescribed qualifications or having been exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the provisions of the Act, should, with effect from the date of commencement of the said section be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity, provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of his appointment up to the commencement of the said section. Sub-sec. (2) of S. 16GG of the Act provided that every teacher deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity under sub-sec (1) should be deemed to be on probation from the date of commencement of the section. The services of the appellant and the 1st respondent, who were working as teachers on ad hoc basis during the relevant period, also came to be regularised by virtue of S. 16GG of the Act. After their services were so regularised dispute arose regarding, the seniority between them. The question of seniority between two or more teachers working in an institution governed by the Act is governed by Regn. 3 in Chapter II of the Regulations made under the Act, the relevant part of which reads thus :- "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;
(3.) WHILE the 1st respondent claimed seniority over the appellant on the basis of his appointment or promotion made on Mar. 1, 1976, the appellant claimed that he being older than the 1st respondent was entitled to be treated as senior to the 1st respondent by virtue of the second part of cl. (b) of Regn. 3(1) of the Regulations framed under the Act which provided that if two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date, seniority should be determined on the basis of age. The above dispute regarding the seniority between the appellant and the 1st respondent was first considered by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia. After considering the history of the services of these two teachers, the District Inspector of Schools came to the conclusion that the fortuitous appointment or promotion of the 1st respondent on 1-3-1976 could not have any effect on the question of seniority between the appellant and the 1st respondent. He further observed that the promotions of the appellant and the 1st respondent had actually been made as per his letter dt. Nov. 20, 1976 which read as under : Following Assistant Teachers of L.T. Grade are promoted to the Lecturer's grade on the posts mentioned against their names. Promotions have been made under Para 5 of Regulations No. Secondary/5183/15/7/762(18)75 Lucknow dt. 7-7-76 made for the appointment of Principals for Govt. aided Private Secondary Schools. JUDGEMENT_57_1_1988Html1.htm Sd/- Illegible Tulsi Ram .Tatar D.T.O.S. Ballia;