S. P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) THE failure of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board to recommend the names of suitable candidates for appointment against the substantive vacancies in the post of Lecturers which occurred in the year 1984 in Shiv Murti Balika Inter College, Kernkak, Jaunpur led to a Seniority dispute amongst the ad-hoc appointees which has culminated in the present special appeals directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge where-under Smt. Asha Rai, the respondent has been held to be senior to the appellants in these appeals.
(2.) THE facts, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of these appeals, lie in a narrow compass. THE creation of the posts of Lecturers in the subjects of Hindi, Civics and Psychology resulted in the occurrence of vacancies in these posts which had to be filled up in accordance with the provisions contained in Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 thereinafter referred to as U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982). THE post of Lecturer in civics fell within the promotion quota envisaged under Regulation 5 (2) of Chapter 2 of the Regulations framed tinder the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. This is evident from the letter of the Manager dated 18-7-1985, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It appears that the management took steps to fill up these vacancies and passed a resolution on 21-3-1984 appointing Smt. Asha Rai, respondent, on the post of Lecturer in Hindi on ad hoc basis, with effect from the date of assumption of the office by her indicating that the appointment was to continue till the regularly selected candidate recommended by the Commission joined the post. This resolution was approved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools vide her letter dated 23-3-1984 and a formal appointment letter was Issued in favour of Smt. Asha Rai dated 24-3-1984 in pursuance whereof she joined the post on 29-3-1984. Smt. Prem Balika Rai, the appellant who had been appointed in the L. T. grade on 21-8-1980 was granted promotion on ad-hoc basis on 9-7-1984, as Lecturer in Civics indicating clearly that the duration of the promotion was for a period of six months only. Smt. Malti Singh, the other appellant was also appointed on 9-7-1984 as Lecturer in psychology on ad-hoc basis for a period ending 30-6-1985. THEse appointments were approved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools vide her letter dated 28-7-1984. It further appears that on the expiry of the aforesaid, period the management passed a fresh resolution appointing the same persons as against the same posts indicating the duration of appointments up to 20-5-1986 which was approved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls vide her letter dated 8-11-1985. It is not disputed that all the three ad-hoc appointments are continuing in service since thereafter under the orders of this Court. At this stage it may be noticed that even though in the resolution of the committee of management dated 21-3-1984 as well as in the order of approval issued by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools dated 23-3-1984 and the formal appointment letter issued in favour of Smt. Asha Rai, it had been clearly mentioned that her appointment was to continue till the recommendee of the Commission joined the post, yet the management, proceeding on the assumption that this appointment had to be taken as having ceased on account of the statutory provisions contained in section 18 of the U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 purported to issue fresh appointment letters and got their approval from the Regional Inspectress of Girls on 28-7-1984 and 8-11-1985 where under it was indicated that the appointment of Smt. Asha Rai was to continue till 30th June, 1984 and 20-5-1986. We have heard Sri Namwar Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Pradeep Varma for the respondents Smt. Asha Rai and as well as learned Standing Counsel at some length and have carefully gone through the records.
(3.) THE appellants have assailed the impugned judgment affirming the decision of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools dated 3rd June. 1992 whereunder the said authority bad treated Smt Asha Rai to be in continuous service with effect from 29-3-1984 end Smt. Prem Balika Rai to be in continuous service with effect from 9-7-1984 and had determined their interse seniority on the basis of their length of service in the Lecturer's grade Learned Counsel for the appellants has urged that while computing the length of service, it is the continuous service alone which had to be taken into account and since in the present case Smt. Asha Rai Smt. Prem Balika Rai and Smt. Malti Singh have been in continuous service In the Lecturers grade from 9-7-1984 only. Their interse seniority has to be governed by the provisions contained in Regulations 3 (i) (b) of the Regulations contained in Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act which stipulates that in a case where the date of appointment is the same the seniority shall be determined on the basis of age and on this ground the learned Counsel asserts that since Smt. Prem Balika Rai is senior in age as compared to Smt. Asba Rai, she ought to have been held senior to Smt. Asha Rai. This submission proceeded on the assumption that service rendered by Smt. Asha Rai prior to 9-7-1984 is liable to be ignored as on her own saying, Smt. Asha Rai had ceased to work after 20-5-1984 and was reappointed only on 9-7-1984. The learned Counsel has heavily relied upon the letter of Smt. Asha Rai dated 6-4-1990 in this connection, a true copy of which has been filed as annexure 6 to the writ petition. In this letter Smt. Asha Rai had disclosed that she has performed the duties of lecturer only during the period 29-3-1984 to 20-5-1984, 8-7-1984 to 30-6-1985 and 8-7-1985 onwards.;