K.C.Agarwal, A.P.Misra, JJ. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari quashing the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 8-12-1983 fixing Seniority of respondent no. 3 over that of the petitioner. Both of these persons were appointed as teachers in L.T. Grade on August 1, 1974. The Committee of Management found that respondent No. 3 was entitled to be treated as senior to the petitioner. This resolution was approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 20-12-1983. Against the resolution of the Committee of Management and approval given by the District Inspector of Schools, the petitioner feels aggrieved. His claim is that lie is entitled to be treated as senior to respondent No. 3. The case of the petitioner is based on Regulation 6 of the Chapter II of U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The Counsel for the petitioner contended that as the petitioner was elder in age than respondent No. 3. he was to be treated as senior. We find it difficult to accept this argument It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8350 (Phulchand Tewari v. District Inspector of Schools and others) that Regulation 6 (1) of Chapter II of the aforesaid Act lays down that per ton elder in age appointed on the same date, when other conditions are the same, has to be treated senior. In the instant case, respondent No. 3 was more qualified. Hence Regulation 6 (1) did not apply. To the same effect is the view of the learned Single Judge of this Court in K.M. Jitendra Phoolka v. Director of Education and others, (1984 UPLBEC 21).
(2.) For these reasons the writ petition is dismissed summarily. Petition dismissed.;