S.N. Pathak, J. - (1.) In the instant writ petition, petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate directions upon the respondents to reckon their seniority from the date of their respective appointments and not from the date of passing their training, as has been allowed and decided by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4235 of 2004 and the same has already been upheld in L.P.A. No. 319 of 2008 and further in S.L.P.(Civil) No. 5520-5522/2013.
(2.) At the very outset, Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioners had been appointed upon the recommendation of the District Compassionate Establishment Committee on sanctioned and vacant post and there had been no legal impediment with respect to their appointment where they had continued uninterruptedly and continuously. Petitioners, while being in service, had augmented their career after taking due permission. They have also undergone and passed inservice Teachers' Training Examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of Circular/Letter of the Government, dated 11.11.1975, seniority of a Teacher shall not be affected in any manner by not passing or not undergoing basic training and hence, petitioners are entitled for recknoing their seniority from the date of their joining and not from the date of their passing the Teachers' Training Examination.
(3.) Learned counsel further submits that due to wrong stand of the respondents regarding counting of seniority, petitioners and several others who had completed requisite length of service and are eligible, are not being promoted in appropriate scale. Summing up this arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this case is squarely covered by order passed in W.P.(S) No. 502 of 2016 and other analogous cases and W.P.(S) No. 67 of 2016 as facts of the present case and those cases are same and similar and as such, this writ petition may be disposed of in light of the order passed in those writ petitions.;