- (1.) R. B. Mehrptra, J. This is defendant's second appeal. The facts neces sary for the decision of the appeal areas under. Sri Hriday Narain Singh, plaintiff filed a suit No. 219 of 1980 in the Court of Munsiff, Haveli, Bareilly impleading therein : (1) Adarsh Niketan Inter College, Attamanda, District, Bareilly through its Secretary, (2) the Committee of Management, Adarsh Inter College, Atiamanda through its Secretary, and (3) Ram Bharosey Singh Yadav as defendants.
(2.) THE plaint case was that defendant No. 1, namely, Adarsh Niketan Inter College is a recognised educational institution and is governed and managed by the defendant No. 2 in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). THE appoint ment, promotion and condition of service of the teachers employed in Adarsh Niketan Inter College (hereinafter referred to as the Institution) are regulated by the provisions contained in the Act and Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. In the year 1976 a seniority list of L. T. grade teachers was prepared, copy thereof was furnished to defendant No. 3, wherein the defen dant No. 3 was shown junior to the plaintiff. THE allegation in the plaint was that the defendant No. 3 did not raise any objection to the said seniority list. It was further alleged in the plaint that on the retirement of Sri Had Shanker Saxena, vacancy occurred in Lecturer Grade in the Institution and defendant No. 2 selected plaintiff to the next higher grade as Lecturer in Sociology and passed resolution to that effect on 27-7- 1980. THE Manager of the defendant No. 2 forwarded the resolution dated 27-7-1980 to the District Inspector of Schools on I 8-1980. It was further alleged in the plaint that the District Inspector of Schools did not communicate his decision on the aforesaid resolu tion. Consequent thereto the plaintiff claimed that his promotion was automatically deemed to have been approved after the expiry of three weeks. THE plaint further alleged that the defendant No. 3 is an influential person and is pressurising the District Inspector of Schools as well as the Management of the Institution to cancel the promotion of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 is threatening to demote the plaintiff from the post of Lecturer, hence cause of action arose for the suit wherein the plaintiff claimed the relief : "that it be declared that the plaintiff is promoted to the post of Lecturer in Sociology in the college of defendant No. 1 on 27-7-1980 from the date of resolution of defendant No. 2 on expiry of statu tory period of concurrence and onwards and is entitled to emolu ments, privilege and benefits from the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to the entire exclusion of defendant No. 3. " The suit was contested by all the defendants. It was inter alia contended in the written statement that the seniority list has not become final and is revisable every year according to Regulation 3 (2) of Regulations framed under the Act. The District Inspector of Schools vide his order dated 26-9-1980 which has been filed on record, declared the defendant No. 3 senior to the plaintiff and as such, no suit is maintainable challenging the aforesaid seniority determined by the District Inspector of Schools. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed issues, however, for the purpose of present appeal only following issues are relevant: " (1) What is the effect of seniority list prepared by defendant No. 2 as on 31-8-1976 on the parties ? (2) Whether the resolution of defendant No. 2, dated 27-7-1980 pro moting the plaintiff to the post of Lecturer of Sociology in the college, defendant No. 1, shall be deemed to have become final and binding on the parties as alleged in para No. 1 of the plaint, if so, its fleet ? (3) What is the effect of letter of D. I. O. S. on 26-9-198j on the resolution of defendant No. 1, dated 27- 7-1980 ?"
(3.) THE trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide its judgment dated 11-12-1980 and passed decree in favour of the plaintiff declaring that the plaintiff stands promoted as Lecturer of Sociology on the basis of the resolu tion dated 27-7-1980 and is entitled to the benefits and salary of the aforesaid post. Aggrieved thereby the defendant No. 3 filed an appeal in the court of District Judge, Bareilly being Civil Appeal No. 7 of 198j. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.;