- (1.) This petion is directed against the order dated 9-7-92 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Basti determining the seniority between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 3. The Petitioner claimed himself to be Lecturer appointed by promotion on 8-7-68. It has been stated that initially the Petitioner was appointed on L.T. grade teacher on 16-7-62. The Petitioner has not disputed that Respondent No. 3 Sri Chandrika Prasad Pandey was directly appointed on 8-7-1968. The date of birth of the Petitioner is 1-1-1940 and that of Respondent No. 3 is 1-7-1938. The Petitioner stated in the writ petition that Petitioner is senior-most Lecturer after the Principal and the seniority list was officially prepared in the year 1975 and 1978. The Petitioner pleaded that there was no occasion for disputiug the Petitioner's seniority in the grade of Lecturer as it had already been finalised. The Respondent No. 3 in the counter affidavit stated that he was appointed as L.T. grade teacher on 11-7-1967. There were several posts of Lecturer vacant in the Institution which were duly advertised by the Committee of Management for being filled up directly. The advertisement was published in the newspaper 'Swantantra Bharat' inviting applications for appointment of Lecturers. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 alongwith number of other persons had applied for direct appointment as Lecturer in the Institution. The Petitioner and the Respondent No. 3 were selected and appointed on the same day i.e. on 8-7-68. It has been stated that the Respondent No. 3 being senior in age was entitled to be declared as senior as both were appointed on the same day. The Respondent No. 3 in the counter affidavit stated that the Petitioner had filled up option form at the time of fixation of seniority. In the option form it was indicated that the Petitioner had been appointed directly, and not claimed to be promoted from L.T. grade to the Lecturer's grade. The question of grant of selection grade to one of the Lecturers in the Institution out of 12 Lecturers was considered on 31-3-79 and Sri Raj Deo Yadav, who alongwith Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 had also been appointed on the same day was granted selection grade only on the ground of his age. The opposite party no. 3 has annexed copy of the seniority list prepared at the time of consideration of the selection grade. The copy of the resolution and the list prepared have been annexed as Annexure CA 5 with the counter affidavit. The Respondent No. 3 has filed number of documents as Annexures CA 5 and 6 showing that the Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer directly in the Institution on 8-7-68 alongwith the Respondent and others.
(2.) The Respondent No. 3 stated that the he had made representations to the Committee of Management and the principal for deciding inter se seniority of the Lecturers in the Institution. The copy of the representation dated 4-11-79 is annexed as Annexure CA 8. Similar representations were also sent to the Manager on 15-1-81, 18-4-81 and large number of reprentations dated 8-9-84, 12-11-84, 8-10-84 and number of representations in 1992. Copy of the last reminder dated 12-4-92 has been annexed as Annexure CA 11.
(3.) The Respondent No. 3 stated in the counter affidavit that the various representations sent by the Respondent No. 3 were never decided by the Committee of Management. In fact the Manager of the Committee of Management by a letter dated 4-5-92 to the D.I.O.S. to decide himself the question of seniority between the Petitioner and the opposite party no. 3 and others. A copy of the letter dated 4-5-92 has been annexed as Annexure 12 with the writ petition.;