- (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the pe titioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the seniority list dated 26-12-2001 (Annexure-1 to the writ peti tion) of the Lecturers of Panna Lal Bhalla Inter College, Haridwar. A mandamus has further been sought to declare the peti tioner Officiating Principal of said college.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the par ties. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was a Lecturer in English since 15-01-1981 with Murli Manohar Inter College, Ishpurteel, District Muzafarnagar. He was transferred from said college to Panna Lal Bhalla Municipal Inter College, Haridwar on 21-07-1997 and since then continu ously working as Lecturer of English in said college. Respondent No. 4 Surendra Singh Beniwal was promoted as Lecturer in Eng lish w. e. f. 06-11-1989, which is clear from the seniority list dated 26-12-2000 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition ). However, respondent No. 3 i. e. Manager of the Col lege, permitted respondent No. 4 to offi ciate as Principal of the college. The pe titioner's case is that in the seniority list, respondent No. 1, has wrongly been shown as serial number 1, as he became Lecturer in English to teach the interme diate classes much after the petitioner was working in said grade. According to the petitioner, he is already getting promotional pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 while I respondent No. 4 is still in the selection ' grade, which is a grade lower than the promotional pay scale. Challenging the wrong placement mentioned in the im pugned seniority list, the petitioner has sought reliefs, as mentioned above. Counter affidavits are filed sepa rately on behalf of respondent No. 2, re spondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4. In the counter affidavit of respondent No. 2, it is stated that Panna Lal Bhalla Inter College, Haridwar (for brevity herein after referred as RL. B. Inter College) is recog nized aided institution to teach classes from 6th to 12th. It is admitted in said counter affidavit that the petitioner who was a Lecturer in Murli Manohar Inter Col lege Ishpurteel, District Muzaffarnagar since 15-01-1981, was subsequently trans ferred on his request to RL. B. Inter Col lege, Haridwar, vide order dated 09-07-1997. In the counter affidavit of respond ent No. 2, it is mentioned that service conditions of the transferred teachers in such cases are governed by Rule 61 of the Regulations framed under Chapter III of U. P Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was to be placed at the bottom of the Lecturer grade in the col lege, where he was transferred. As to the seniority of Surendra Singh (respondent No. 4) in the counter affidavit of respond ent No. 2, it is stated that he was initially only Assistant Teacher in L. T. Grade w. e. f. 20-07-1970 and was promoted as Lecturer in Hindi w. e. f. 06-11-1989. Defending the impugned seniority list, it has been stated that the seniority of the petitioner is required to be reckoned from 21-07-1997 when he actually joined his duties in RL. B. Inter College on his transfer.
(3.) IN the counter affidavit of respond-lent No. 3 i. e. Manager of RL. B. College, mi has been stated that the petitioner was Lecturer in English w. e. f. 15-01-1981 in murli Manohar INter College Ishpurteel, District Muzaffarnagar and was transferred to RL. B. INter College, Haridwar. Defend ing the impugned seniority list, it has been stated on behalf of respondent No. 3 that the petitioner was to be placed at the bot tom of the seniority of the teachers in the grade he was working. Relying on Rule 61 of Regulations framed under U. P INterme diate Education Act, 1921, it is stated that respondent No. 4 is senior to the petitioner and is officiating as Principal, in accordance with law. It is further stated in para-10 of the counter affidavit of re spondent No. 3 that on 01-07-2001, re spondent No. 4 has been promoted on adhoc basis and is not officiating on the post of Principal. However, it is stated that the adhoc appointment of respondent No. 4 is only till the Principal is selected through Commission. Respondent No. 4, has filed his separate counter affidavit but the aver ments are same as mentioned in counter affidavit of respondent No. 3.;