JUDGMENT

G.B.PATTANAIK, J.

(1) DELAY condoned in filing the special leave petition, the leave having been granted earlier.

(2) THE appellant, who was appointed as a Teacher in the LT Grade of a private aided educational institution, assails the order of the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court, which was upheld in appeal by the Division Bench. The appellants case is that he was appointed to the LT Grade earlier than the respondent no.4, and therefore, he was rightly declared to be senior on a representation being made to the Deputy Director of Education by order dated 18.7.1994. The said order could not have been interfered with by the High Court in the writ petition, and as such High Court committed serious error in interfering with the aforesaid order of the Deputy Director. It is also further contended that any finding or observation of the High Court in relation to the legality of the appointment of respondent no.4 to the post of Lecturer as well as to the further post of Principal should not stand on the way of the appellant, . if otherwise is entitled to challenge the same.

(3) IT transpires that while both the appellant and respondent no.4 were continuing as teachers in the LT Grade, the Managing Committee of the School passed a Resolution purported to have been passed on 1,8.1981 promoting the respondent no.4 to the post of Lecturer. The aforesaid Resolution appears to have been approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 10.4.1991. According to the appellant, the Resolution in question was in fact an ante-dated one and was passed only in 1991 purporting to be one under 1.8.1981 and the said Resolution could not have been passed in appointing people to the post of Lecturer as there was no vacancy available at that point of time. It is further contended by the appellant that in fact in an ancillary proceeding a writ petition being filed by some of the appointees on the post on the basis of the very same Resolution for payment of salary, the High Court has already given its finding with regard to the absence of vacancy, and as such so-called appointment of respondent no.4 in the Lecturer grade could not have been regularised by any finding of the High Court in the present writ petition which had been filed by respondent no.4.

(4) THE contention of the Counsel appearing for respondent no.4, on the other hand, is that the seniority of the appellant in the LT Grade is not being assailed by him but the subsequent promotion of the respondent no.4 to the post of Lecturer and further promotion to the post of Principal cannot be set at naught in any ancillary proceeding unless and until a competent authority or a competent court annuls the said order. According to him the so-called ancillary proceeding for payment of salary had been made, the respondent no.4 was not a party, and as such any observation made therein will not be conclusive and binding.

(5) THE claim of seniority of the employee is always determined in any particular grade or cadre and it is not the law that seniority in one grade or cadre would be dependent on the seniority in other grade or cadre. It is no doubt true that the appellant has been held to be senior to respondent no.4 in LT Grade by virtue of determination made by the Deputy Director of Education by his order dated 18.7.1994. But at the same time the Managing Committe in accordance with the provisions of the relevant regulation promoted the respondent no.4 to the post of Lecturer by the so-called Resolution dated 1.8.1981 which appears to have been approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 10.4.1991. The so-called approval made by the Deputy Inspector of Schools has not been annulled by any higher competent authority under the Act or the Regulation nor any Court in an appropriate proceeding has annulled the same. Therefore, the rights of respondent no.4 in the promoted post of Lecturer as well as subsequent post of Principal cannot b