Judgment

S.N. Phunkan, J.-Respondent No. 4 filed a writ petition before the High Court regarding her seniority vis-a-vis the seniority of the present appellant. The wirt petition ws allowed by judgment dated 01.03.1995 passed in O.J.C. No. 867 of 1990. Thereafter review petition No. 76/95 was filed which was dismissed by order dated 02.02.1996. One civil appeal has been filed before this Court against the above tow orders. Another separate writ petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court which was registered as O.J.C. No. 1874 of 1996. By order dated 02.05.96 the said writ petition was dismissed. Against the said order of dismissal the second appeal has been filed. Both the appeals are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. To appreciate the contnetions of the parties we may briefly state the facts of the case.

3. The appellant and respondent No. 4 joined the post of lecturer in economince in the college namely Kamla Nehru Women’s College, Bhuba­neswar on the same day i.e. 27.07.1979. The college became eligible to receive grant-in-aid from the Government in the year 1982-83 under rlevant rules. As the appellant and respondent No. 4 were not quali­fied as they did not have the requisite percentage of marks in M.A., grant-in-aid for the post of lecturer in economices was not released. The appellant imporved the marks and secured first class and, there­fore, she was qualified to get grant-in-aid for the post. It may be stated that second post of lecturer in economics was also sanctioned by the Government in the year 1987. On 8.7.87 the University condoned the deficiency of qualification of responedent No. 4 and the State Government did the same on 27.11.1986. The Governing Body of the College passed the resolution fixing the senirority between the appel­lant and respondent No. 4 and treated respondent No. 4 to be senior and an enquiry was also conducted by the director of higher education who found respondent No. 4 to be senior. The Minister of Education of the Government accepted the resolution of the Governing Body and ordered respondent No. 4 to be senior to the appellant vide order dated 19.01.89 As grant-in-aid was not released, respondent No. 4 approached the High Court by filing first writ petition namely O.J.C. No. 867 of 1990. The Division Bench of the High Court inter alia held that respondent No. 4 must be appointed against the first post of lecturer in the College and thereafter she would be entitled to re­ceive grant-in-aid. The direction was issued to the concerned authori­ty to release the grant-in-aid.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. It may be stated that before this Court the appellant has filed number of documents which were not produced before the High Court and as such we ignore all these documents.

5. It has been urged that though both appellant and respondent No. 4 joined on the same day but the appellant joined in forenoon and re­spondent No. 4 in afternoon and futher the letter of appointment to the appellant was sent earlier. We are of the opinion that these are not at all relevant for the purpose of examining the question of seniority.

6. The appellant placed reliance on a copy of the resolution of the Governing Body, dated 15.12.1979 vide annexure-A to the petition. In the said resolution the name of the appellant had been shown against the first post in economice in the college and the name of respondent No. 4 against the second post. In the counter filed on behalf of the College namely respondent Nos. 3 and 4, a copy of the resolution has been annexed as Annexxure-2 and from the said resolution we find that the appellant was shown against the second post and the respondent No. 4 against the first post of lecture. As resolution of the Governing Body are kept by the College and the above resolution has been duloy produced by the college, it has to be accepted and not the copy of the resolution annexed by the appellant. We find from the judgment of the High Court in O.J.C. NO. 8