Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM PRASAD SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECONDARY EDUCATION & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Prasad Singh v. State Of U.P. Through Principal Secondary Education & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 54686 of 2003 [2007] RD-AH 8575 (7 May 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.54686 of 2003

Ram Prasad Singh

Versus

State of U.P. and others

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.27971 of 2004

Ram Prasad Singh

Versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner, Ram Prasad Singh has approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 03.02.2003, by means of which he has been held junior vis-a-vis Diwakar Upadhyaya, and further prayer has been made that he be permitted to function as Principal of Adersh Higher Secondary School, Robertsganj, Sonbhadra.

Brief background of the case is that in the district of Sonbhadra there is an institution known as Adersh Higher Secondary School, Robertsganj, Sonbhadra. Initially, it was Junior High School, and subsequently, it has been upgraded to Higher Secondary level. In the said institution, when it was Junior High School, Diwakar Upadhyaya was appointed as Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade on 06.11.1979, whereas petitioner was appointed as as Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade on 08.11.1982. On up-gradation of the institution, both, Diwakar Upadhyaya as well as petitioner were given adjustment as C.T. Grade teachers on 30.12.1988 and 30.08.1991 respectively. They were promoted as L.T. Grade teachers and thereafter, their services were regularised on one and the same date i.e. 14.06.2000. Dispute has been sought to be raised inter se Diwakar Upadhyaya and the petitioner as to who is senior. The Managing Committee of the institution published seniority list, wherein Diwakar Upadhyaya was shown to be senior to petitioner and petitioner was shown to be junior. Petitioner objected to the said seniority list, and the said dispute has been decided by Joint Director of Education, holding Diwakar Upadhyaya as senior. At this juncture first writ  petitions have requestin has been made that the petitioner be permitted to function as Principal and salary of the said post be also ensured to him.

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged inter se parties, and as such both the writ petitions have been taken up together and are being disposed of by a common judgment, with the consent of the parties.

Sri P.R. Ganguli, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case date of substantive appointment of petitioner as well as Diwakar Upadhyaya is one and the same, as such petitioner, being senior in age, is liable to be declared as senior, and in this background, the view which has been taken by means of impugned order determining seniority is incorrect view and the same is liable to be quashed.

Sri R.D. Singh, Advocate, representing Diwakar Upadhyaya, as well as learned Standing Counsel representing State-respondents, on the other hand, contended that rightful decision has been taken and the seniority has been determined in consonance  with the provisions of Chapter II Regulation 3 of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, as such no interference is warranted by this Court.

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges is to the effect that there is no dispute that Diwakar Upadhyaya had been appointed in the institution concerned on 06.11.1979, whereas petitioner was appointed on 08.11.1982, as C.T. Grade teachers. After up-gradation of the institution both were accorded substantive status on on 30.12.1988 and therefore on 30.08.1991 both of them were promoted as L.T. Grade teachers on ad hoc basis and subsequently, their services were regularised as L.T. Grade Teacher with effect from 14.06.2000. This is undisputed that Diwakar Upadhyaya had been appointed earlier in point of time on substantive basis as Assistant teacher in C.T. Grade, and on each and every stage, Diwakar Upadhyaya has been shown senior to petitioner. Seniority has to be determined in terms of Chapter II Regulation 3 of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, wherein manner has been provided for as follows, which is being quoted below:

"3. (1)  The Committee of Management of the every institution shall cause a seniority list of teacher to be prepared in accordance with the following provision:

(a) The seniority list shall be prepared separately for each grade of teachers whether permanent or temporary, on any substantive post;

(b) Seniority of teachers in the grade shall be determined on the basis of their substantive appointment in that grade. If two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date, seniority shall be determined on the basis of the age;  

(bb) Where two or more teachers working in a grade are promoted to the next higher grade on the same date, their seniority inter se shall be determined on the basis of the length of their service to be reckoned from the date of their substantive appointment in the grade from which they are promoted.

Provided that if such length of service is equal, seni9ority shall be determined on the basis of age.  

(c) A teacher in higher grade shall be deemed to be senior to a teacher in the lower grade irrespective of the length of service.

(d) If a teacher who is placed under suspension is restrained on his original post , his original seniority in the grade shall not be affected.

(e) Every dispute about the seniority of the teacher shall be referred to the Committee of Management which shall  decide the same giving reasons for the decision:"

A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would go to show that  seniority list has to be prepared separately for each grade of teachers whether permanent or temporary, on any substantive post. Seniority of teachers in the grade hasl be determined on the basis of their substantive appointment in that grade. If two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date, then seniority has to be determined on the basis of the age. There is further provision that where two or more teachers working in a grade are promoted to the next higher grade on the same date, their seniority inter se has to be determined on the basis of the length of their service to be reckoned from the date of their substantive appointment in the grade from which they are promoted, and if such length of service is equal, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age.  

In the backdrop of the aforesaid provisions of Chapter II Regulation 3 (1) (bb), of U.P. Act No. II of 1921, the claim of petitioner as well as Diwakar Upadhyaya is to be looked into.  Diwakar Upadhyaya was appointed as C.T. Grade teacher much prior to petitioner  on substantive basis, though the petitioner and Diwakar Upadhyaya were promoted on the same date on ad hoc basis as L.T. Grade Teacher on 30.08.1991, and they were accorded substantive status  of L.T. Grade Teacher on 14.06.2000, and in this background, seniority has to be determined on the basis of length of service from the date of their substantive appointment in the grade from which they were promoted. Petitioner as well as Diwakar Upadhyaya had been promoted from C.T. grade to L.T. Grade and the length of substantive appointment in C.T. Grade of Diwakar Upadhyaya was much more in comparison to petitioner, as such Joint Director of Education cannot be said to be in error  in deciding and determining the seniority of Diwakar Upadhyaya  and he has been rightly declared to be senior vis-a-vis petitioner. In these circumstances and in this background, seniority has rightly been determined and the same warrants no interference.  Once Diwakar Upadhyaya has been declared senior to petitioner, then he alone has right to function as ad hoc Principal of the institution in terms of Section 18 of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and receive remuneration accordingly.

Consequently, both the writ petitions lack substance and same are dismissed, accordingly.    

07.05.2007

SRY        


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.