R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE dispute in this petition is with regard to appointment on the post of lecturer in subject Hindi in Janta Intermediate College, Lotwa Kalan, District Deoria (hereinafter referred to as the college). A clear vacancy for post of lecturer in subject Hindi had fallen vacant in the college in the year 1978. The committee of Management by its resolution dated 4.10.1978 decided to fill up the post by promotion and proposed name of petitioner for the same. The resolution has been filed as Annexure IV to the writ petition. From perusal of resolution it appears that Committee of Management on the basis of teaching experience of petitioner preferred him for appointment by promotion. Relevant portion of the resolution is being extracted below: - - As required under law, papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for approval of the appointment of petitioner. The District Inspector of Schools, however, by order dated 22/23 2.1979 expressed his disagreement with the proposal and he required the management to submit the proposal for promotion along with seniority list so that approval may be granted. Along with this he also required service record and character roll etc. The committee of management submitted its reply on 10.3.1979, which is Annexure V to the writ petition. In this letter longer teaching experience of petitioner than respondent No. 3 was mentioned with regard to the periods and institutions. The committee of management also relied on the Circular letter of the Director of Education dated 4.8.1976. The District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 16.6.1979, Annexure 1 to the rejoinder affidavit again required the committee of management to send the service record and the seniority list showing date of birth. It also enquired as to why name of respondent No. 3 has not been proposed for promotion. The committee of management replied this letter on 19.6.1979 and in this letter it was categorically stated that petitioner has a longer period of service in the institution and he is possessed of more teaching experience and period of service to his credit and hence his name has been proposed. In respect of respondent No. 3 it was stated that his period of service is less and further he was appointed as Sanskrit teacher. Along with this letter the required record was also submitted. Copy of this letter is Annexure 2 to the rejoinder affidavit. The District Inspector of Schools thereafter by his order dated 22.6.1979 approved the appointment of petitioner with effect from the date of his order, A copy of the order is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. It appears that respondent No. 3 against the order of approval made a representation before the Deputy Director of Education, VII Region, on 19.7.1979. On this representation, the Deputy Director of Education directed the District Inspector of Schools to enquire into and change the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 22.6.1979, if necessary. The District Inspector of Schools on the basis of this direction perused the record and found that petitioner and respondent No. 3 both were appointed as C.T. Grade Teacher on 8.7.1970. Both were appointed in L.T. Grade on 8.8.1972 but as respondent No. 3 is elder in age, hence he is senior. Then he concluded that as respondent No. 3 was senior in age, the benefit of the promotion should have been given to him. Then relying on the direction of the Deputy Director of Education dated 27.7.1979, he by his order dated 31.12.1979 modified the order dated 22.6.1979 approving appointment of petitioner and approved name of respondent No. 3 as lecturer in subject Hindi. The order is Annexure 6 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by this order petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) A supplementary affidavit dated 24.1.1980 was filed by petitioner. This court by order dated 25.1.1980 admitted the writ petition and by interim order stayed operation of order dated 21.12.1979 passed by the District Inspector of Schools. The stay order was confirmed by order dated 14.7.1980. It is not disputed that petitioner is still working as lecturer. In reply of the writ petition and supplementary affidavit, counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 3 and rejoinder affidavit has been filed by petitioner.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record.;