Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) The petitioner, Bhagwart Hari Goyal, claims that he is the senior most teacher at the Sardar Patel Inter College, Shergarh, District Mathura, and, thus, he has been appointed as the officiating/acting principal in pursuance of a resolution of the Managing Committee of the institution dated 26 June, 1992 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). In pursuance of this, he claims that his signatures have been attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 13 July, 1992, and that he has been discharging his functions as an officiating principle.
(2.) He is aggrieved by two orders of the District Inspector of Schools dated 19 March, 1993 and 27 March, 1993 (Annexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition) addressed to the Manager of the institution by which the District Inspector of Schools has demanded the correct seniority list of the teachers. By the present writ petition, as the petitioner apprehends that his post as an officiating principal may be in jeopardy, a writ of certiorari is sought to quash the direction of the District Inspector of Schools. In this communication dated 27 March, 1993 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) instead of the petitioner, one Shastri Prasad Sharma, the respondent No. 3 is being made an officiating principal. From the perusal of the two communications of the District Inspector of Schools, aforesaid, it appears that this respondent nu.y be the senior-most teacher. A caveat has been entered on behalf of the respondent No. 3, who oppose the writ petition.
(3.) The issue in the petition, plainly, is as to who is the senior-most teacher. It is not for tins Court to judge the claims of the petitioner or the respondent No. 3. A clear cut provision has been made in the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, in the matter relating to the determination of the seniority of teachers. This is provided in Chapter II, Clause 3. The Management of an institution is obliged to maintain a seniority list. This is referred to in Clause 3 (1) of the Regulations. By sub-clause (2), the seniority list is to be up-to-date every year. From a perusal of the two communications of the District Inspector of Schools, it is clear that the Committee of Management of this institution has been evading its obligation in maintaining the seniority list and that the seniority list has not been made available either to the teachers or the District Inspector of Schools. These are matters of record which the District Inspector of Schools has certified and on this matter also there is no issue. The claims on seniority, thus, would remain until it is determined. The contention of the District Inspector of Schools in his two communications is that as the Management will no disclose, the past evidence, on the basis of which it has maintained the seniority list then on whatever he has, regard being had to the criteria of best judgment, he has held the respondent No 3 to be the senior-most. The piecemeal record which was sent by the Committee of Management to the District Inspector of Schools, he has termed it virtually as slip-shed.;