JUDGMENT

THAKKAR, J. :— Seniority is the bone of contention.

2. The dispute centres round the question as to whether the High Court was right in affirming the view taken by the District Inspector of Schools that Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were senior to the appellant in the lecturers grade in the Kashiraj Maha Vidyalaya. Inter College, Orai, District Varanasi.

3. The dispute regarding inter se seniority having arisen amongst the aforesaid three persons, the District Inspector of Schools examined the issue and rendered a decision*1A dated January 8, 1980 holding that Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were senior to the appellant in the lecturers Grade having regard to the fact that their appointment in the grade became effective from 19-12-62, 1-7-63 and 23-7-1963 respectively.

* 1A. Under Regulation 3(1)(f) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act.

4. The appellant challenged the decision by way of a Writ Petition to the High Court. The High Court affirmed the decision of the District Inspector of Schools and dismissed the Writ Petition. Thereupon the Writ Petitioner in the High Court has approached this Court by way of the present appeal by Special Leave.

5. The appellant was initially working as an Assistant Teacher in the aforesaid institution which was upgraded into an Intermediate College under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act. The appellant started teaching Hindi in the Intermediate classes upon the institution being upgraded, though he was not qualified to be appointed as a lecturer in Hindi as per the relevant regulations*l which enjoined that the minimum educational qualification for being appointed as a lecturer in Hindi was M.A. in Hindi and B. A. with Sanskrit whereas the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification of B. A. in Sanskrit. It is not in dispute that the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification viz. B. A. degree in Sanskrit and was therefore not entitled to be appointed in the lecturers grade as lecturer (Hindi) having regard to the prohibition contained in S. 16-F of the Intermediate Education Act.*2 The appellant however could have been appointed as a lecturer in Hindi if he was exempted from possessing such qualifications, in exercise of powers under sub-sec. (i) of S. 16-E of the Act.*3 The appellant made an application for exemption as envisaged by S. 16-E of the Act. This application was granted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. by its order dated July 23, 1963. The contention of the appellant is that though the Board had actually granted exemption only on July 23, 1963, he must be deemed to have been exempted from November 4, 1960, the date on which he made the application for exemption. If the appellant is right in his submission that although he was factually exempted by the order of July 23, 1963 he must be deemed to have been exempted with retrospective effect from November 4. 1960, the appellant must succeed. If this contention is considered to be untenable the appellant must fail. The High Court has taken the view that the appellant is entitled to be treated as having become duly qualified with the actual date of the grant of exemption on July 23, 1963 and that he cannot be treated as having been granted exemption with retrospective effect. In this view of the matter the appellants seniority vis-a-vis Respondents 5 and 6 has been computed on the basis that the appellant was appointed on July 23, 1963 when he became qualified for being appointed to the lecturers grade. The appellant has contended that the High Court has committed an error in not accepting his plea and has reiterated the same, submission before this Court.

* 1. Vide Appendix A to the Regulations read with Regulation 1 of Chapter II read with S. 16-E of the Act.

* 2. Section 16-F. "Subject to the provisions hereinafter specified, no person shall be appointed as a Principal, Head Master or teacher in a recognized institution unless he (a)