- (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of a dispute of seniority between the petitioner Dr. V.K. Sinha and the respondent No. 6 Dr. Kiran Shanker, both of whom by virtue of their seniority are claiming their right to occupy the office of officiating Principal of Chaudhary Mahadev Prasad Degree College/Allahabad which is an institution duly affiliated to the University of Allahabad, the respondent No.3 herein. The challenge is to the impugned order dated 18th August, 2008 passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the respondent No. 6 has been declared to be senior to the petitioner.
(2.) IN a dispute with regard to inter se seniority between one Dr. A. R. Saxena and others, various decisions were rendered, which ultimately culminated in a decision under the Statutes of the Allahabad University by the Vice Chancellor vide order dated 20th March, 2001. This order has been brought on record before us through a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. A perusal of the said decision indicates that the petitioner. Dr. V.K. Sinha was placed below the respondent No. 6 according to the initial appointment on the post of lecturer. It would be appropriate to mention here that a degree college affiliated to a University under the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (for short the Act) has the post of Principal and the posts of lecturers but there are no other cadres like the post of Reader or the Professor as in the University. However, in order to avoid any stagnation and to provide for certain benefits of the said nature, government orders were enforced from time to time awarding benefits under the Career Advancement Scheme and re-designation of the posts. Prior to this, benefits of the selection grade were also extended resulting in award of higher pay scales in accordance with the Government Orders prevalent from time to time. The petitioner claims to have been awarded the selection grade with effect from 25th July, 1982 and the respondent No. 6 is said to have been awarded the said grade with effect from 23rd February, 1983, according to the date of their acquiring the qualification of D.Phil/Ph.D. These facts have been narrated in detail in the order dated 20th March, 2001 which determines the seniority of the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 vis-a-vis Dr. A.R. Saxena. To this stage, there does not appear to be any dispute between the parties. An amendment was brought about in the First Statutes of the University of Allahabad which have been initially promulgated in the year 1976. The amendment, insofar as the present dispute is concerned, is contained in the provisions of Statute 11.12 (c). Sub-clause (3) of the said statute extends the benefit to a lecturer in an associated college for being placed in a senior scale/ selection grade. The petitioner on the strength of the said amendment coupled with paragraph 15-A of the Career Advancement Scheme, which was introduced on 17th January, 1989 claims that since the said benefits have been made available to him, therefore, he stands senior to the respondent No. 6. The petitioner has extensively narrated his claim in the representation dated 10th March, 2008 which has been appended as Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit brought on record. The said submissions along with certain judicial pronouncements are contained in a subsequent representation filed by the petitioner, which has been described as an appeal under Clause 11(g) of the Chapter XLII of the Ordinance of the University of Allahabad presently in force. This representation is Annexure-22 to the writ petition. The petitioner has categorically taken a stand claiming seniority placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. Mahak Singh v. Chancellor, Ch. Charan Singh University and others, (1996) 11 SCC 760.
(3.) APART from the aforesaid submissions, the case of the petitioner is that while he was officiating as Principal, a request had been made by the University itself for forwarding the seniority list in accordance with the communication dated 2nd January, 2003. A copy of this communication was forwarded by the Registrar of the University to the institution through the letter dated 8th April, 2006 which is Annexure-17 to the writ petition. The petitioner contends that in response to the said query a seniority list was drawn up by him and circulated, against which there was no substantial objection with regard to the placement of the petitioner at SI. No. 2 and that of the respondent No. 6 at SI. No. 7. It has been alleged that the new Ordinances of the University had not come into force by that time and it was under the old Statutes and Ordinances which have been brought on record through the supplementary affidavit that the seniority was to be determined. It is contended that the said seniority list was communicated to the Vice Chancellor on 27th June, 2006 and was not disputed. On the strength of the said communication the petitioner further contended that once the petitioner had been treated to be senior to the respondent No. 6 and the said communication was through the competent authority, namely the Principal of the institution under Statutes, the same cannot be questioned now by the respondent No. 6. It is also urged that by virtue of the said seniority, which according to the petitioner is final, since no appeal had been filed against the same before the Vice Chancellor, the petitioner cannot now claim seniority over and above the petitioner.;