B.D.Agrawal, J. - (1.) The dispute in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution lies within a narrow compass. The petitioner and the respondent no 3 both are teachers in the Panchayat Raj Higher Secondary School, Mokalpur, district Jaunpur The respondent was appointed on temporary basis by the Committee of Management with effect from August 25, 1965 and continued till July 31, 1966. The appointment of the petitioner who was then untrained was made on September, 1, 1965 on the basis of 2/3rd of the Grade pay. Upon advertisement being made to fill in the post on substantive basis, the petitioner and respondent both were selected by the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose on July 31, 1966. The District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur accorded approval on Vth October, 1966. The petitioner is admittedly older in age. The question arose of granting Selection grade. In the order dated July 19, 1983 the District Inspector of Schools directed the respondent to be treated as Senior in comparison to the petitioner. The consequential order was passed by him thereafter on 11th August, 1983. Against these orders the petitioner represented on 6th October, 1983 which was rejected on March 13, 1985. Another representation made on 27th March, 1985 along the same lines also failed as appearing from the order dated 2dth April, 1985. Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this court.
(2.) The sole question agitated is that of seniority between the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 inter It is not in controversy, as mentioned above, that both appeared before the selection committee for appointment against the substantive post on 31st July, 1966 and there was approval given by the District Inspector of Schools to their appointment under the common order made on 17th October, 1966. It is also admitted that in age the petitioner is elder to the respondent. For the petitioner reliance has been placed on Regulation 3 (1) (b) Chapter II of the Intermediate Education Act. This reads as under : "3. (1) (b). Seniority of teachers in a grade shall be determined on the basis of their substantive appointment in that grade. If two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date, Seniority shall be determined on the basis of age."
(3.) Both the petitioner and the respondent were appointed in the L.T. Grade on the same date that is to say on August, I, 1966 and Since the petitioner is older in age, it is contended and, not without force in my opinion that the petitioner is senior in comparison to the respondent. In accordance with this regulation the determining factor is the date of substantive appointment with this rider that where the date of appointment is the same as in this case it is the age which counts. For the respondent, however, there is reference made to clause (a) of Regulation 3 (1) and the submission made is that in face thereof clause (b) is not relevant. Clause (a) provides:- "(a) The seniority list shall be prepared separately for each grade of teachers whether permanent or temporary, on and Substantive posts;