Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.8.1997. passed by the Director of Education (Secondary) U. P.. Allahabad, respondent No. 1, holding that Sri Ganga Singh Bisht, respondent No. 4. Is senior to the petitioner.
(2.) The dispute relates as to the seniority between the petitioner and respondent No. 4. The undisputed facts are that respondent No. 4 was appointed in B.T.C. grade in Higher Secondary School. Maundari. Post Office Dandatalla. district Garhwal on 1.8.1975. The petitioner was also appointed in the same institution in B.T.C. grade on 1.8.1977. The Institution was upgraded to the level and the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were promoted in C.T. grade on 9.1.1985. There is no dispute that in B.T.C. grade respondent No. 4 was senior to the petitioner. The controversy is in respect of the seniority in L.T. grade. On up-gradation of the Institution to the level of High School on 9.1.1985. three posts of L.T. grade teachers were also created by the Director of Education on 9.7.1989. On creation of three posts of L.T. grade teacher, one post of L.T, grade teacher was kept reserved for the Head Master who was promoted on ad hoc basis and for remaining two posts vacancies were notified to the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission. One Govind Ram Mangain was functioning as Head Master of Junior High School, He was promoted to the post of Head Master on ad hoc basis after the Institution was upgraded to High School under Para 4 (c) of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981. Respondent No. 4 was promoted on ad hoc basis treating it as short term vacancy on 26.4.1990. One Yudhbir Singh who was next junior to respondent No. 2 was promoted on ad hoc basis in L.T. grade on 10.3.1992. One Kiran Pal who was recommended by fee U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in L.T. grade was appointed in the Institution on 1.10.1992. In the meantime Sri Govind Ram, Head Master of the Institution retired on 30.6.1994. The services of the petitioner were regularised on 23.4.1994 on that post by the order of the Director of Education. The petitioner was given L.T. grade on 9.1.1995 on account of the fact that he had completed ten years as a teacher in C.T. grade.
(3.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the teachers are working in the same grade, the seniority will be counted on the basis of age. The petitioner being senior in age to respondent No. 4, he shall be treated as senior to respondent No. 4. He has placed reliance upon Regulation 3 (1) (b) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act which provides that seniority of teachers in a grade shall be determined on the basts of their substantive appointment in that grade. If two or more teachers were so appointed on the same day, the seniority shall be determined on the basis of age. This clause has no application to the facts of the case after insertion of clause (bb) which is more in explanatory nature in reference to clause (b). This clause provides that where two or more teachers working in a grade are promoted to the next higher grade on the same day, their seniority inter se shall be determined on the basis of length of their service to be reckoned from the date of their substantive appointment in the grade from which they are promoted. The Junior High School Maundari was upgraded from Junior High School to Higher Secondary School on 19.1.1985. It was recognised by the State Government. The contention of the petitioner is that on upgradalion of the Junior High School to Higher Secondary School, the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 were merged into C.T. grade. Both of them shall be treated as working in C.T. grade since then. The length of service in B.T.C. grade shall not be counted while considering the seniority in C.T. grade. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. In view of clause (bb) of Regulation 3 (1), the length of service in be counted. Respondent No. 4 shall be treated as senior to the petitioner in C.T. grade.;