Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BANWARI LAL AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Banwari Lal And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 77213 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7836 (20 December 2005)

 

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.18

Civil Misc writ petition No.77213 of 2005

Banwari Lal and Balveer Sharma  vs. State of U. P. and others

******

Hon.A.P.Sahi,J.  

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.D.Tripathi for the resp[ondents no.3 and 4.

The petitioners have prayed  for a mandamus  directing the respondents for preparation of seniority list  in accordance with the judgment  dated 24.2.2004, which the petitioners allege has not been done and promotion orders have been issued on  12.12.2005 contravening the same.

A perusal of the judgment dated 24.2.2004 indicates that for the purpose of promotion on the post of Head Master of Junior High School, a combined list of Head Master of Primary School and  Asstt teachers of the Junior High School was directed to be prepared and rules were interpreted accordingly. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, a Govt. Order was issued on 28.3.2005, a copy whereof  is Annexure III to the writ petition, which clarifies  that the order of seniority between  the Asstt. teachers  of Junior High School and Head Master of the Primary Schools will remain unaltered and the Asstt. teachers of Junior High School shall be treated  to be senior than  Head Master of the Primary Schools prior to the Vth Amendment to the 1981 Rules brought  in the year 1993. However, the same Govt. Order  clarifies  that after 20.6.1993 there shall be a  combined seniority list  and which appears to be  in consonance with the judgment of the High court referred to herein above. It is to be noted that the High Court has clarified the question of  seniority by clearly stating  that the Head Masters  of Primary Schools, who were working on such posts on substantive basis,  prior to the amendment shall not be entitled  to get the length of  their service  counted for the purpose of seniority. The length of service was only to be counted from the date pf substantive appointment  against these posts. The direction made in the judgment  was clearly meant not to disturb the seniority which was enjoyed  by the Asstt. Teachers of Junior High School prior to the amendment.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that  the list which has now been promulgated  in respect of the Head Masters of Primary School is not in conformity with the aforesaid judgment and, therefore,  the same should be reviewed. Having perused the said seniority list , which is Annexure IV to the writ petition, it appears that the list contains  the names of such Head Masters of Primary Schools, who had been promoted as such upto 20.8.90. Admittedly, the petitioner no.1  was promoted as Head Master  of Primary School on 2.11.90, therefore,  does not appear to have any cause of action to complain about the seniority list  prepared so far.

The petitioner no.2 claims to have been  promoted as  Head Master of the Primary School on 3.8.90, but his name does not appear in the said list of Head Masters, who are promoted  upto 20.8.1990. Sri Tripathi learned counsel for the respondents no.3 and 4  contends that it appears that the name of the petitioner no.2  does not appear in the seniority list, appended as Annexure IV to the writ petition on account of the fact that the said  petitioner has accepted the promotion  as Asstt. Teacher of Junior High School on 29.12.1995. For this Sri Tripathi has urged that the matter be remitted  to the Dist. Basic Education Officer, who may examine the aforesaid facts and pass appropriate orders with regard to the claim of the petitioner no.2.

Accordingly,the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.4 to consider the claim of the petitioner no.2 Balveer Sharma in the light of the observations  made herein above and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law   as expeditiously as possible preferably within six weeks  from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, before him.

In the event the said respondent comes to the conclusion  that the petitioner is entitled  to be placed in the seniority list  as prepared by the respondents, then he shall be given all such consequential benefits  as has been done in the case of such teachers who have been promoted  before 12.12.2005 and accordingly shall be placed in such list.

With the aforesaid directions the writ petition is disposed of.

Dt.20.12.2005

maw/


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.