- (1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. All these petitions are connected and involve similar questions of facts and law and, therefore, have been heard together as requested and agreed by learned Counsel for the parties and are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) AN old and stale dispute which attained finality long1 back, yet can be kept alive by a litigant by filing several writ petitions in a circuitous manner is writ large from this group of writ petitions. It is evident from the facts and dispute raised in all these writ petitions as analysed and discussed hereinbelow. Avinash Cyan Peeth Kanya High School, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur Nagar (here inafter referred to as the "college") is recognised by the U. R Board of High School and Intermediate Education (in short "the Board") under U. P. Intermediate Educa tion Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the "1921 Act" ). The appointment of teachers in the College is to be made through U. P. Secondary Education Ser vices Selection Board (in short "the Commission), constituted under the provi sions of U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinaf ter referred to as "1982 Act" ). However, it is not disputed between the parties that the College is receiving grant in aid and salary is paid under U. P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employ ees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as" 1971 Act") only upto High School. The then Principal of the College retired on 30. 6. 1988 as a result whereof one Smt Shiv Sheel Saxena. L. T. Grade teacher was appointed acid hoc Principal of the College on 8. 7. 1988. This resulted in a short term vacancy in L. T Grade where upon Smt. Rita Shukla (later on became Smt. Rita Tripathi, after marriage) (here inafter referred to. as the "second petitioner") was appointed as L. T. Grade Teacher purely on ad hoc basis and her appointment was approved by the Regional' Inspectors of Girls Schools, IV Region, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to "rigs") vide order dated 20. 12. 1989. The said appointment was approved till reversion of Smt. Shiv Sheel Saxena from the post of officiating Principal. Smt. Saxena, how ever, attained the age of superannuation on 30. 6. 1990 resulting in substantive vacancy in LT. Grade, on the post on which the second petitioner was appointed, and, therefore, she continued as such. Subsequently, by order dated 27. 1. 1994 passed by Regional Deputy Director of Education II, Kanpur Region, Kanpur, she was regularised as Assistant Teacher, LT. Grade. Smt. Bharti Roy (hereinafter referred to as "the first petitioner") was appointed on purely ad hoc basis in C. T. Grade vide order dated 20. 2. 1982. Subsequently, in View of Section 33-A of 1982 Act as amended by Ordinance No. 12 of 1985, she was substantively appointed in C. T. Grade w. e. f. 12. 6. 1985 by order dated 9. 7. 1986 passed by RIGS, Allahabad. It appears that a seniority list of teachers was circulated by the management of the College in 1994 wherein the second petitioner was shown at serial No. 3 while the first petitioner was shown at serial No. 4. One Sri Rama Pati Singh was placed at serial No. 1 and Smt. Sheela Mehrotra at serial No. 2. According to the first petitioner the said seniority list was published on 3. 7. 1996 where against she made several representations to the Management of the College (Anenxures 8 to 13 to writ petition No. 24401 of 1996), claiming seniority over Sri Ramapati Singh, Smt. Rita Tripatti and Km. Sudha Kapoor and thereafter filed writ petition No. 24401 of 1996, claiming Sri Ramapati Singh as respondent No. 4, Joint Director of Education (II), Kanpur, Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Kanpur Nagar and the Committee of Management as respondents No. 1 to 3 respectively and sought the following reliefs: (i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus command ing the respondents to treat the petitioner as senior to Sri Rama Pati Singh, respondent No. 4, and to forthwith appoint the petitioner as head of the insti tution, namely, Avinash Gyan Need Kanya High School, by. reverting the respondent Ng. 4 from the aforesaid post (ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner salary of the post of Head of Institu tion, in question, month by month, as laid when the same falls due (iii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of ceritiorari, declaring the impugned seniority list, Annexure (4) to the writ petition as null and void (iv) any other writ, order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case and (v) award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.
(3.) WHILE. entertaining the aforesaid writ petition, this Court granted interim: order on 17. 9. 1996, restraining Sri Ramapati Singh from functioning as Principal of the institution, and directing the- Management to appoint seniormost teacher as Principal as a stop gap arrangement till disposal, of the writ petition. Since there were some mistakes in various paragraphs of the writ petition with respect to date etc. , the first petitioner filed an amendment application No. 69478 of 1996 which was allowed by- his Court on 10. 8,2000 permitting the petitioner to file an amended copy of the writ petition, in compliance where of. she-filed amended copy of the writ petition, She filed another amendment application No. 14114 of 1999 which was, however, rejected by this Court stating that the amendment- sought therein are likely to widen-the scope of the dispute in the writ petition and therefore, the petitioner may file. a fresh writ petition with respect, to such dispute. A perusal of the amendment application shows that it was filed when the Management sought to recommend the name of second petitioner along with another senior teacher to the Commission for considering them for substantive appointment on the post of Principals per 1982act. The first petitioner taking recourse to the order dated 10. 08. 2000 passed by this Court rejecting her amendment application and per mitting to file a fresh. writ petition, filed writ petition 38253 of 2000 impleading second petitfoner4 respondent No. 5 and prayed for the following reliefs " (a) a Writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding respondent School Management (respondents No. 3) to treat the peti tioner as senior to Smt Rita Tripathi (respondent No. 5) and also forward the name of the petitioner for consideration to U. P. High Education Commission (respondent No. 5) for the post of Principal (b) a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus command ing respondent No. 4, the Commission to consider the case of the petitioner and to appoint her as Principal, and not to hold any interview for the said post till the pendency of the writ petition (c) issue any other writ, order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper on the facts and the circumstances of the present case and (d) award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner. " The first petitioner had also stated in the said writ petition that she made representations to the authorities concerned on 1. 7. 1992,30. 7. 1992,25. 9. 1993 and 4. 7. 1996 disputing her seniority qua others but no decision was taken by the authorities. This Court, while entertaining the writ petition and issuing notice to respondents No. 3 and 4, i. e. , the Management of the College and the Commis sion. 29:8. 2000 provided that in the meantime, representation of the petitioner shall be decided and in case the petitioner was within first two seniormost Lec turer, her name should also be sent to the Commission for consideration of ap pointment on the post of Principal. A perusal of Annexures 8 to 10 would show that the same were the representations wherein the first petitioner disputed her seniority qua Sri Rama Pati Singh and Annexure 11 was the representation dated 14. 7. 1996 which was said to have been submitted against the seniority list im pugned in the aforesaid writ petition disputing her seniority qua Sri Rama Pati Singh, Smt. Rita Tripathi and Km. Sudha Kapoor. Pursuant to the directions of this Court contained in the order dated 29. 8. 2000, the committee of management passed order dated 29 9. 2000 rejecting representations, observing that Smt. Rita Tripathi was senior to the first petitioner. Thereafter, the first petitioner filed an Amendment Application No, 11187 of 2000 challenging order dated 29. 92000 of the Management. ,;