- (1.) Petitioner, who is a lecturer in Sewa Samiti Bhawar Lal Intermediate College, Deoria (In short the College) has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 13-8-1991 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) passed by the District Inspector of Schools, thereby declaring the Respondent No. 2 Sri S.N. Srivastava, Senior to the: Petitioner in the grade of lecturers paving the way for the charge of the post of Principal, which fell vacant due to death of the permanent incumbent Sri Udai Narain Rao on 10-7-1991, to be made over to the aforesaid Respondent No. 2, in preference to the Petitioner.
(2.) Undisputed matrix of the facts is that both the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 together with certain others were selected for appointment as teaches in the lecturer grade in the aforesaid institution pursuant to an interview held on 3rd July 1966 as per advertisement No. 202-1-9-6 66 appearing in the News Paper The Leader' in its issue of June 16, 1966. The recommendation made by the Selection committee was approved of by the District Inspector of Sohools by means of the order contained in his letter dated August 11, 1966. A copy of the order is annexed as Annexure C.A. 5 to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 2. To paraphrase, the Petitioner's selection for appointment as Lecturer in Mathematics and that of the Respondent No. 2 in Biology was approved of by the District Inspector of Schools by means of the order referred to above. The approval so according to the selection was followed by the appointment letters dated 8-9-1966 6-9-1966 issued, in favour of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 respection under the authorisation of the Committee of Management vide (sic) dated 12-8-1966.
(3.) The Petitioner's case, however, Is that a number of vacancies in the posts of lecturer in different subjects were lying vacant in the year 1965-66 and since the selection in accordance with Section 16-P of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (in short the 'Act') was to take sometime, the Committee of Management appointed the Petitioner as also the Respondent No. 2 besides certain others as lecturers in different subjects. The Petitioner, it is alleged, joined the service as lecturer in Mathematics on 1-7.1966 while the Respondent No. 2 took over as lecturer in Biology on 9-7-1966 According to the Petitioner the period of probation of one year In respect of him commenced with effect from July 1, 1966, the date he was first appointed by the Committed of Management in anticipation of his selection and appointment in accordance with Section 16-P of the Act and he was, it is alleged, accordingly confirmed with effect from 1-7-1966, whereas the period of probation in respect of the Respondent No. 2 commenced from 9th July 1966 on which date, he was first appointed likewise in anticipation of his selection and approval in accordance with the said provisions of law and therefore, it is alleged, his confirmation was subsequent to the date of Petitioner's confirmation as aforesaid. The Respondent No. 2 on the other hand, has denied that he himself was appointed on 9th July 1966 and the Petitioner on 1st July 1966. His case is that he was appointed on 6th Sept. 1966 after the selection was duly approved of by the District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 11-8-66 whereas the Petitioner was appointed on 8th Sept 1966 pursuant to the approval accorded to his selection by the District Inspector of Schools vide letter aforesaid. It is on these averments that each one of them is claiming precedence over the other.;