JUDGEMENT
SUNIL AMBWANI, J. -
(1.) HEARD Sri G.K. Singh for petitioner and Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Smt. Anita Tripathi for respondents 5 & 6. Sri K. A. Singh appears for Committee of Management, Standing Counsel was heard for State -respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition arises out of seniority dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The Ratan Sen Inter College, Bansi, District -Siddharth Nagar is recognized and is regulated by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982. On the retirement of Sri Ram Deo Pandey working as ad hoc Principal objections were filed by petitioner Dr. Shrikant Misra, respondent No. 5 Sri Dinesh Chandra Pandey and respondent No. 6. Sri Pramod Shanker Pandey. One Sri Ram Gopal Misra also filed his objection. All the 4 persons claimed to be the senior -most Lecturers in the College. The Committee of Management by its decision dated 18 -7 -2002 found that the petitioner Dr. Shrikant Misra is the senior most amongst all. In the meantime, the out going ad hoc Principal forwarded the names of respondents 5 and 6 for selections for the post of permanent Principal to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board on 22 -5 -2002. The District Inspector of Schools sent a letter to the Board for staying the selection until the management decides the seniority dispute.
The respondents 5 and 6 challenged the orders of the Committee of Management dated 18 -6 -2002 before the District Inspector of Schools and also filed writ petition No. 25338 of 2002 which was decided on 1 -7 -2002 with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to decide the objection/grievance, after affording full opportunity to the concerned parties. The District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 31 -7 -2002 found that respondents 5 and 6 were not promoted vide any resolution passed by the Committee of Management but was given promotional pay scale on the basis of length of service. He found that the petitioner as well as Sri Ram Gopal Misra were substantively appointed as Lecturers on the same day on 21 -7 -1970 and thus the petitioner senior to Shri Ram Gopal Misra on the basis of age. Respondents 5 and 6 filed writ petition Nos. 37761 and 37241 of 2002 respectively. Respondents 5 and 6 also filed appeals before the Joint Director of Education, Basti Division, Basti on 28 -6 -2002 and 17 -8 -2002 respectively. The petitioner requested for copies of the appeal, it is alleged, that these copies were not supplied and that the Joint Director of Education vide order dated 22 -10 -2003 decided the matter. He found that respondents 5 and 6 were appointed substantively on 10 -1 -1967 and 12 -7 -1979 respectively and are senior to the petitioner and Ram Gopal Misra who was appointed on the same date on 21 -7 -1970. He held that respondent No. 5, Sri Dinesh Chandra Pandey is the senior -most Lecturer in the College. The District Inspector of Schools passed a consequential order dated 7 -11 -2003 directing the petitioner to hand over the charge to Sri Dinesh Chandra Pandey. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged both the orders dated 22 -10 -2003 passed by Joint Director of Education as well as dated 7 -11 -2003 passed by the District Inspector of Schools and for restoring the order of the Committee of Management dated 18 -6 -2002 and the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 1 -8 -2002 by which he confirmed the seniority drawn by the Committee of Management and had allowed the petitioner to function as Officiating Principal of the College.
(3.) REGULATION 3 of Chapter III of the Regulations made under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, provides for preparation of seniority list by Committee of Management separately for each grade of teachers whether permanent or in temporary or on any substantive post. Sub -clauses 1(b) to (g) provides for determination of seniority of teachers in a grade and determine all dispute. Regulation 3 of Chapter III of the Act is quoted as below:
3. (1) The Committee of Management of every institution shall cause a seniority list of teachers to be prepared in accordance with the following provisions: (a) The seniority list shall be prepared separately for each grade of teachers whether permanent or temporary, on any substantive post; (b) Seniority of teachers in a grade shall be determined on the basis of their substantive appointment in that grade. If two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age; (bb) Where two or more teachers working in a grade are promoted to the next higher grade on the same date, their seniority inter se shall be determined on the basis of the length of their service to be reckoned from the date of their substantive appointment in the grade from which they are promoted: Provided that if such length of service is equal, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age; (c) A teacher in a higher grade shall be deemed to be senior to a teacher in the lower grade irrespective of the length of service; (d) If a teacher who is placed under suspension is reinstated on his original post, his original seniority in the grade shall not be affected; (e) Every dispute about the seniority of the teacher shall be referred to the Committee of Management which shall decide the same giving reasons for the decision; (f) Any teacher aggrieved by the decision of the Management Committee under sub -clause(e) within 15 days of the date of information of such decision to the teacher, may appeal to concerned regional Deputy Director and on appeal after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, Deputy Director will give his decision with reasons, which will be final and executed by the Management Committee; (g) Where two or more teachers working in the same grade are promoted on the same date, their inter se seniority shall be length of service in that grade in which they were working, but, if the length of service is equal, then in the event of promotion seniority shall be determined on the basis of age. ;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.