- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Hoard Sri H. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the peti tioner, Sri Tej Ram, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent No. 1, and Sri Shrikanti Misra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3.
(2.) INTER se seniority of Sri Ram Raj Shukla, the petitioner, and Raj Narain Tewari, the respondent No. 3, the two Assistant Teachers of Shri Siddheshwar Higher Secondary School, Gopalpur Bijuri, district Fatehpur, hereinafter called the institution, in C. T. grade, is the subject-matter of controversy in the instant writ petition. Initially the institution was a Junior High School and was upgraded as High School with effect from 22nd October, 1974. By order dated 4th July, 1974, the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 3 were appointed as Assistant Teachers in C. T. grade. In pursuance of the appointment order dated 4th July, 1974 the petitioner joined the institution on 10th July, 1974 and the respondent No. 3 joined on 9th July, 1974. Subsequent to the upgradation of the institution as High School, the District Inspector of Schools, Fatehpur granted approval to the appointments of the petitioner and the respondent No. 3, putting them on one year's proba tion, by the order dated 14th March, 1975.
(3.) IT appears that in the year 1980 the petitioner was shown to be junior to the respondent No. 3 m the seniority list, He objected. The Managing Committee of the institution passed an order dated 10th December, 1980 rejecting the objection of the petitioner and affirming that the respondent No. 3 was senior than the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Managing Committee, the petitioner went up in appeal before the District Inspector of Schools, Fatehpur, the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 rejected the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the order of the Managing Committee of the institution by his order dated 9th July, 1981. Following the order of rejection, the District Inspector of Schools has approved the proposal of the Managing Committee for promotion of the res pondent No. 3 to L. T. grade by his another order dated 9th July, 1981. These two orders dated 9th July, 1981, passed by the respondent No. 1, are sought to be challenged by the petitioner. Sri H. N. Singh contends that the respondents No. 1 committed an error apparent on the face of record in computing the inter se seniority of the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 on the basis of the date of their joining the institution. According to him the relevant date for reckoning the seniority is the date on which the respondent No. 1 accorded approval to their ap pointments putting them on one year's probation.;