Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -Heard Sri P. N. Saxena for the petitioner and Sri O. P. Shukla, for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner claims seniority over respondent No. 4 on the basis of appointment in Lecturer Grade. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on 24.8.1973 in L.T. grade. He was confirmed on 24.8.1974. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted on ad hoc basis on 11.9.1994 under 50% quota pending approval by the Commission. The ad hoc promotion of the petitioner was approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 31.5.1995. On 5.11.2000, the Joint Director of Education directed the District Inspector of Schools to issue directions to the Committee of Management of the College under Section 14 (6) of the U. P. Secondary Education Selection Board Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the basis of decision taken by the regional committee in the matter of the petitioner to give him promotion on substantive basis on the post of Lecturer in Economics after through examination. As far as respondent No. 4 is concerned he was appointed as untrained J.T.C. Grade Teacher on 16.9.1972 and was promoted to C.T. Grade Teacher on 1.11.1978 and L.T. Grade on 1.1.1986. He was appointed as Lecturer on ad hoc basis on 14.7.2001 which was approved by the regional committee on 8.1.2003 from the date of joining, i.e., 14.7.2001. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the order of approval passed by the regional committee dated 8.1.2003 the respondent No. 4 has been granted seniority from the date of joining, i.e., 14.7.2001 whereas there is no such order. Insofar as approval granted to the petitioner is concerned, he is being treated as junior to respondent No. 4.
(3.) THE petitioner has relied upon the provisions of Regulation 3 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, which provides as under : "3. (1) THE Committee of Management of every institution shall cause a seniority list of teachers to be prepared in accordance with the following provisions : (a) THE seniority list shall be prepared separately for each grade of teachers whether permanent or temporary, on any substantive post ; (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 ; (bb) Where two or more teachers working in a grade are promoted to the next higher grade on the same date, their seniority inter se shall be determined on the basis of the length of their service to be reckoned from the date of their substantive appointment in the grade from which they are promoted : Provided that if such length of service is equal, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age. (c) A teacher in a higher grade shall be deemed to be senior to a teacher in the lower grade irrespective of the length of service ; (d) If a teacher who is placed under suspension is reinstated on his original post, his original seniority in the grade shall not be affected ; (e) Every dispute above the seniority of the teacher shall be referred to the Committee of Management which shall decide the same giving reasons for the decision ; ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... Note.-For the convenience of the readers, English translation of sub-regulations (f) and (g) is given hereunder : (f) Any teacher aggrieved by the decision of the Management Committee under sub-clause (e) within 15 days of the date of information of such decision to the teacher, may appeal to concerned Regional Deputy Director and on appeal after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, Deputy Director will give his decision with reasons, which will be final and executed by the Management Committee ; and (g) Where two or more teachers working in the same grade are promoted on the same date, their inter se seniority shall be the length of service in that grade in which they were working, but, if the length of service is equal, then in the event of promotion seniority shall be determined on the basis of the age. (2) THE seniority list shall be revised every year and the provisions of Clause (1) shall mutatis mutandis apply to such revision." On the strength of the aforesaid Regulation 3 the learned counsel for the petitioner claims that as the petitioner was approved by the regional committee on 5.11.2000 and the respondent on 8.2.2003 the petitioner is senior to the respondent.;