High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Anil Kumar Saxena v. Ramveer Sharma & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 780 of 2007  RD-AH 10477 (7 June 2007)
Court No. 42
Special Appeal No. 780 of 2007
Anil Kumar Saxena
Ramveer Sharma & others
Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Heard Sri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi appearing for respondent no. 1 and learned standing counsel for respondents no. 2 and 3.
This intra Court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.5.2007 whereby the Hon'ble Single Judge has allowed the writ petition of the petitioner-respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner).
In brief, the facts as stated in the appeal shows that the appellant was promoted as Lecturer (Civics) on ad hoc basis with effect from 17.5.1995 against a vacancy occurred on 30.6.1994 while the respondent no. 1 was promoted as Lecturer (Hindi) on ad hoc basis in the year 1996 against the vacancy fell on 30.1.1989. However, the substantive promotion of respondent no. 1 was approved by Regional Committee on 12.2.1999 while substantive promotion of appellant was approved vide order dated 20.1.2004. The Committee of Management prepared seniority list of lecturers wherein the appellant was shown senior to the respondent no. 1 whereagainst he raised a dispute and came to this Court in writ petition no. 50031 of 2005 and this Court directed the matter to be decided by the Regional Joint Director of Education, Agra pursuant whereto vide order dated 19.6.2006, the Regional Joint Director of Education, Agra has rejected representation of the respondent no. 1 holding appellant senior. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent no. 1 preferred aforesaid writ petition which has been allowed by Hon'ble Single Judge observing that since substantive promotion of respondent no. 1 was made on 12.2.1999 and the appellant was given substantive promotion on 20.1.2004, therefore, the respondent no. 1 is senior to the appellant. Sri Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that he was given promotion in 1995, which was approved by the District Inspector of Schools placing reliance on the order of the District Inspector of Schools, which is on record on page 137. We find that the order dated 17.5.1995 whereby the District Inspector of Schools granted approval for payment of salary to the appellant on his promotion to lecturer grade itself mentions that the said promotion is on ad hoc basis. Under Regulation 3 Chapter II of the Regulations, the date referred to for the purpose of seniority is the date of substantive appointment. Learned counsel for the appellant could not show that the appellant was appointed on substantive basis on a date earlier to respondent no. 1.
In this view of the matter, we do not find any fault in the judgment under appeal. The Special Appeal, therefore, lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.