R.R. Misra, J. - (1.) Dispute is about seniority. Occasion arose as the Commission did not accord approval to recommendation of the Committee of Management for appointing the petitioner as lecturer since he was not qualified. To over it, the petitioner filed this petition and claims on one hand that he is senior most teacher, and on the other that opposite party No. 4 could not be considered to be senior or duly appointed to L.T. grade .
(2.) Admittedly the petitioner was appointed in Basic Training Schools and its up gradation resulted in petitioners appointment in C.T. Grade, from where he was promoted in L.T. grade in J976 within three years, whereas opposite party No. 4 was appointed directly in L.T. grade in the year 1975. Their appointments in L.T. grade were approval on 17.11.1976 and 27.11.1976 respectively. The claim of the petitioner is that for ad-hoc appointments in 1976 under Removal of Difficulties Order there was no requirement of five years service as was provided in the Regulations, therefore, his appointment in L.T. grade was proper, and in any case he having been appointed as ad-hoc stood regularised in 1977, and since the approval to his appointment is earlier in point of time, he should be deemed to be senior to opposite party No. 4.
(3.) Promotion of the petitioner and appointment of opposite-party No. 4 were made as for back as in 1973 and 1975 or 1976 and, therefore, to enter into the controversy as to whether their appointment were proper or not, may be unfair and unnecessary. But the opposite party No. 4 having been appointed in L.T. grade prior to petitioner, he obviously was senior to him. Approval by District Inspector of Schools will not result in making him senior as it is well settled now that delay in confirmation or approval unless for any valid reason, namely adverse entry or misconduct, should be related back to the date when the person was appointed or promoted. Therefore, the approval granted by District Inspector of Schools should be related back and accordingly the opposite party No. 4 becomes senior to the petitioner. Same would apply if regularisation is deemed to be under Section 16 GG as regularisation should not result in disturbing the date of appointment. From either point of view, the case of petitioner does not appear to be well founded.;