A.K.YOG, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226, Constitution of India has been filed by one Smt. Kamla Sharma seeking to challenge the impugned order dated November 1/2, 1993 passed by respondent No. I/Deputy Director of Education deciding appeal and regarding seniority in favour of respondent No. 3 (Smt. Usha Varshaney, both working as lecturers in a recognized Intermediate Girls Institution called Chiranji Lal Girls Inter College, Aligarh (called the 'College'), which is, admittedly governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (as amended up to date) and regulations framed thereunder. Copy of impugned order has been filed as (Annexure -1 to the writ petition).
(2.) FOR appreciating the controversy raised by the parties, following undisputed dates are being given: - Sl. No. Dates Events 01 05 -07 -1966 Smt. Kamla Sharma, the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer (English) at Agrasen Balika Inter College, Mathura (where the petitioner worked up to 13th July 1970). 02 08 -07 -1969 Smt. Usha Varshaney, respondent No. 3 was appointed as C.T Grade Teacher and Chiranji Lal Balika Higher Secondary School, Aligarh. 03 01 -09 -1969 respondent No. 3 was given promotion as Lecturer (Sanskrit). 04 10 -10 -1969 Chiranji Lal Balika Higher Secondary School was upgraded as Inter College. 05 10 -02 -1970 Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools approved appointment of respondent No. 3 as C.T Grade Teacher on one -year probation. 06 16 -06 -1970 Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools approved respondent No. 3 as Lecturer(Sanskrit). 07 14 -07 -1970 Petitioner was appointed and she joined as Lecturer in Chiranji Lal Balika Inter Collage Aligarh. 08 24 -11 -1970 Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools approved the petitioner's appointment as Lecture in Chiranji Lal Balika Inter College, Aligarh. 09 14 -08 -1983 Resolution was passed by Committee of Management for adding services of petitioner from 08 -07 -1963 to 13 -7 -1970 at Agrasen Inter College, Mathura into services at the institution from 14 -07 -1970 recommending grant of selection grade to the petitioner. 10 02 -04 -1989 Petitioner submitted representation to the Committee of Management for correct determination of seniority and to place her next to Principal as senior -most Lecturer. 11 19 -04 -1993 Authorised Controller decided the seniority declaring the petitioner as senior -most Lecturer, respondent No. 3 held junior to the petitioner. 12 02 -11 -1993 Deputy Director of Education, on appeal filed by respondent No. 3 against order dated 19 -04 -1993 declared respondent No. 3 senior to the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Ashok Bhushan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (who had accepted notice for respondent No. 2 also) and Shri B.B. Paul, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent.No. 3.
(3.) THERE is o dispute that Smt. Kamla Sharma (Petitioner) did not challenge the seniority of Smt. Usha Varshaney (respondent No. 3), who was ever -since the appointment of the petitioner in the College till 1989, was treated senior to the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel, however, referred to Para 2 of Annexure RA -3 (filed along with the Rejoinder -Affidavit) to show that the petitioner had made representations dated 29th December, 1973, 22nd April, 1974, 25th April, 1978 and 25th July 1983. It is further alleged that the petitioner had made representations dated 2nd April, 1989 and 1st June, 1989 also before Authorised Controller but no action was taken. The fact that petitioner did not pursue her representations and aforementioned dates clearly show that there is gap of about four years between 1974 and 1978 as well as gap of five years between 1978 and 1983. In case, Committee of Management was not circulating seniority, as required under relevant regulations, the petitioner ought to have raised the issue before higher authorities or proper Court. She approached this Court for a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to treat the petitioner senior to respondent No. 3 by allowing long time of more than a decade to run and she contended by filing representations with no decision on them. Long since and passive approach of her disentitle her to reopen long settled old issues.;