M. C. Agarwal, J. - (1.) THESE are writ petitions by two teachers employed in Ram Pyari Arya Kannaya Inter College, Chandausi, District Moradabad. Since they raise identical disputes they were linked together and are disposed of by this common order.
(2.) IN writ petition No. 9143 of 1988, the petitioner is Smt. Ranjana Agarwal. The petitioner of writ petition no. 6256 of 1989 is respondent no. 4 in this writ petition and the Regional INspectress of Girls Schools, Moradabad, U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad and the Committee of Management of the aforesaid college are respondents 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Her case is that she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the said college in L. T. Grade w.e.f. 20th September, 1974 on substantive basis against a clear vacancy. Smt. Sushila Shastri, respondent no. 4 was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in the college in C. T. Grade and she was promoted to the L. T. Grade w.e.f. 8th July 1976. Thus, according to this petitioner she is senior to the respondent Smt. Sushila Shastri. One Smt. Bina Saxena was a permanent lecturer in Sanskrit in the said college. She resigned from service w.ef 20-5-1978. According to petitioner Smt. Ranjana Agarwal, that vacancy has not been filled so far. IN September, 1987, the Committee of Management determined and intimated the vacancy to the second respondent i. e. the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission through the Regional INspectress of Girls Schools. According to the Committee of Management the aforesaid vacancy arose as a result of resignation of Smt. Bina Saxena and was to be filled up by promotion. IN the said Communication to the respondent no. 2 Smt. Ranjana Agarwal was shown as junior to Smt. Sushila Shastri and the commission is said to have raised objection enquiring how Smt. Ranjana Agarwal was shown as junior to Smt. Sushila Shastri. The Committee of Management is said to have repeated its stand that Smt. Sushila Shastri was senior to the petitioner. Vide letter dated 19th December 1987 the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission returned the service records of the petitioner and the respondent no 4 stating that none of them had completed five years continuous service in the L. T. Grade on 20-5-1978 and, therefore, they were not eligible for promotion against the aforesaid vacancy (A copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition). According to petitioner Smt. Ranjana Agarwal, the date of occurrence of the vacancy in terms of rule 9 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 framed under the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act. 1982 means the date on which the Management determines tie vacancy under rule 4 of the said rules and not the dated 20-5-1978 on which Smt. Bina Saxena had resigned from her post and, therefore, according to her the Commission was in error in requiring five years continuous service as on 20-5-1978 for the petitioner's eligibility for promotion. According to her the Committee of Management determined the vacancy for the first time in September, 1986 and on that date the petitioner had put in more than five years of continuous service. It is contended that the petitioner is senior to the respondent No. 4 because the latter's appointment was approved by the R.I.G.S. on 8-7-1976 and was not effective from 25th July, 1973. R.I.G.S. is alleged to have erred in giving retrospective effect to the appointment of the respondent No. 4 in the L. T. Grade. On these averments the petitioner seeks cancellation of the letter of the respondent no. 2 dated 19th December, 1987 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition by which the Commission had taken the stand that the two teachers aforesaid having not completed rive years continuous service on 20-5-1978 were not eligible for promotion. The petitioner also seeks cancellation of a letter dated Ist March, 1987 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) by which the R.I.G.S. had stated thai the appointment of the respondent No. 4 Smt. Sushila Shastri in the L. T. Grade was effective from 22nd July 1973, the date on which the Managing 'Committee passed a resolution appointing her in the said grade. A further prayer made in this petition is that respondents 1 and 3 be directed to forward the name of the petitioner for consideration for promotion to the post of lecturer in Sanskrit. The institution, respondent No. 3 has not put in appearance and no counter affidavit has been filed on its behalf. On behalf of respondent No. 2 i. e. U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission, it has been asserted in the counter affidavit, sworn by its Deputy Secretary Sri Chandra Dutt Pandey that under the concerned rule-9 a teacher for becoming eligible for promotion must have put in at least five years continuous service as a teacher on the date of occurence of the vacancy. According to it the vacancy occurred on 20-5-1978 and on that date none of the two teachers had completed five years service in the L. T. Grade to become eligible for promotion to the post of a lecturer. It controverts the petitioner's stand that the period of five years has to be counted on the date when the Committee of Management determines to fill the vacancy by promotion.
(3.) ON behalf of respondent no. 1, Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools (R. I. G. S) one Vijay Narain Sharma has sworn the counter affidavit. As the affidavit states he is posted as Junior Clerk at the Government Girir Inter College, Amroha. Its case is that the appointment of Smt. Sushila Shastri was effective from 22nd July 1973 while the petitioner Smt. Ranjana Agarwal was appointed in the L. T. Grade w. e. f. 20-9-1974 and hence Smt. Sushila Shastri was rightly treated as senior to this petitioner. It is stated that the Commission did raise certain objections vide its letter dated 17-6-1987 about the inter-se seniority of the petitioner and respondent no. 4, but ultimately the Commission through its letter dated 24 th February, 1988 directed that the respondent No. 4 being senior to the petitioner should be offered the promotion on the post of lecture in Sanskrit. According to the R.I.G.S. respondent No. 4 was rightly appointed to the post of a lecturer in Sanskrit (A copy of the alleged letter dated 24th February, 1988 is claimed to have been annexed as Annexure-C-1 to this counter affidavit). Smt. Sushila Shastri, respondent no. 4 has also filed a counter affidavit. As stated above, she has also filed the another writ petition No. 6256 of 1989 and, therefore, to avoid repetition, her case as set up in the writ petition will be stated hereafter as the facts pleaded in the counter affidavit are more or less the game.;