D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner who had been working in the college from 1.7.1972 was selected for appointment by the Committee of Management along with respondent No. 4 for two different posts. Pursuant to such selection by a letter dated 22.11.1972 approval for both the appointments was sought from the District Inspector of Schools by the Committee of Management. By an order dated 30.11.1972, the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the District Inspector of Schools. On receipt of the said approval, the Committee of Management had issued appointment letter to the petitioner on 1.12.1972. Pursuant to which, he joined on 1.12.1972. The Committee of Management while issuing order of appointment to the petitioner had also addressed letter to the District Inspector of Schools on 1.12.1972, informing him that by letter dated 22.11.1972, the Committee of Management had sought for approval of both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4, but only approval of the petitioner has been received. Therefore, approval in respect to respondent No. 4 may also be sent. By an order dated 1.12.1972, the District Inspector of Schools had approved appointment of respondent No. 4. Having received such approval, appointment letter was issued on 1.12.1972 to the respondent No. 4, who Joined on the same day.
(2.) After such Joining, seniority was fixed according to the rules taking appointment to have taken effect on 1.12.1972 and the respondent No. 4 was placed above the petitioner in the seniority list. Subsequently, the petitioner had prayed for salary for the period between 1.7.1972 till 30.11.1972. The same having refused, he made a representation and while deciding the said representation, a report was sought for. From the said report for the first time, the petitioner alleges to have come to learn that the date of approval of appointment was accorded on 30.11.1972. Therefore, he sought for alteration of the seniority list on the basis of such approval. The same was refused by the management as well as by the Deputy Director of Education Vth Region, Varanasi. This order has been challenged in this writ petition.
(3.) Sri G. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision in the case of Lalitmohon Mishra v. District Inspector of Schools. 1979 ALJ 1025, contends that in para 11 of the said judgment, the date of approval is the date for the purposes of counting seniority. Therefore, the date of issue of appointment letter and joining is immaterial. The appointment of the petitioner having been approved on 30.11.1972 and that of respondent No. 4 having been approved on 1.12.1972, the petitioner should be treated as senior. However, he very fairly conceded that if both the appointments are taken to be on 1.12.1972, in that event the petitioner will be Junior to respondent No. 4. Therefore, so far as fixation of seniority presuming the date of appointment as welt as approval on 1.12.1972 appears to be correct, but according to him, on the basis of ratio decided in the case of Lalitmohan Mishra (supra), the date of approval of the petitioner being 30.11.1972, he is to be treated to be senior to respondent No. 4.;