- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. Both these writ petitions are disposed of by a com mon judgment as the common questions of law and facts are involved. Writ Petition No. 318 shall be leading writ petition. Bahadur Singh Gaur shall be referred to as the petitioner and R. K. Shukla as respondent No. 3 in the judgment.
(2.) THE main controversy is regarding seniority in between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 Rama Kant Shukla. THE material facts are not in dispute. Sri Ajodhya Singh Intermediate College, Kashipur district Kanpur is a recognised institution under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the institution ). THE Committee of Man agement of the institution advertised three posts pf lecturers. One post for lecturer in Economics, second for lecturer in Hindi and the third for lecturer in English. THE petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 both applied for ap pointment to the posts of lecturers. THE Selection Committee interviewed and selected the candidates on 15th July, 1973. THE petitioner was selected for the post of lecturer in Economics, respondent No. 3 was selected for the post of lecturer in Hindi and one Jagdish Narain Awasthi was selected for the post of lecturer in English. THE Committee of Management sent the papers for grant of approval for appointment of the candidates who were selected. THE District Inspector of Schools, respondent No. 1 granted approval of selection on 14th August, 1973. THE Committee of Manage ment issued appointment letter to the lecturers on 22nd August, 1973 who were selected and approved by the District Inspector of Schools. Petitioner was issued appointment letter on 22nd August, 1973 and he joined the institution on the same date. Respondent No. 3 was already functioning as assistant teacher in L. T. grade in the institution. He claimed that as he was permitted to function as lecturer in the institution on 1st July, 1973 he is senior to the petitioner who joined the institution on 22nd August, 1973. The relevant date was the date of joining of the institution. There is no dispute that the seniority shall be determined on the basis of the date of grant of approval of the selection by the District Inspector of Schools. The limited question remains to be decided as to whether a teacher who is issued appointment letter subsequently and joined later on and another teacher who is permitted to function on the date of approval even without issuing any appointment letter, will be treated senior to the person who joins the institution later on. It is relevant to refer to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 16-F of U. P. Intermediate Education Act (prior to the amendment in the year 1975) which leads as under : "16-F. (1) Subject to the provisions hereinafter specified ; no person shall be appointed as a Principal, Headmaster or the teacher in a recognised institution unless he- (a) possesses the prescribed qualifications or has been exempted under sub-section (1) of Section 16-F ; (b) has been recommended by selection committee constituted under sub-section (2) or (3), as the case may be, of the said section and approved, in the case of Principal or Headmaster by the Regional Deputy Director, Education, and in the case of a teacher by the Inspector ;
(3.) AFTER the approval is granted by the District Inspector of Schools, the Committee of Management is bound to issue an appointment letter in accordance with Regulation 16 of Chapter-II of the Regulations framed under the Act (unamended) which reads as under : "16. Order of appointment.-Within two weeks of receipt of approval of the selected candidate for appointment as Principal, Headmaster or teacher the Manager shall, on authorization under a resolution of the Committee of Management, issue an order of appointment to the candidate mentioning therein among other particulars, the salary, scale of pay and period of probation and with instructions to join duty within a fortnight of the receipt of the appointment order. The appointment of a candidate failing to report for duty within this period will be liable to termination. A copy of the order of appointment shall be sent to the authority prescribed in Section 16-F (2) read with Section 16-G (5) for information and record to his office. " From the facts as found by the District Inspector of Schools it is clear that respondent No. 3 was functioning on the date of grant of approval i. e. 14th August, 1973. The petitioner was issued appointment letter on 22nd August, 1973 and on the date he received the appointment letter, he started functioning as lecturer in the institution.;