Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.12.2010 (Annexure 8 to writ petition) passed by Joint Director of Education, Allahabad Region, Allahabad (respondent No. 2) holding respondent 5, Balram Mishra, senior to petitioner on the ground that for respondent No. 5 date of appointment reckon for seniority would be 20.4.1998 while for petitioner it would be 17.2.2004. Petitioner has also challenged order dated 9.10.2006 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby it has regularized respondent No. 5 on the post of Lecturer.

2. Facts giving rise to the present dispute, as borne out from record, are as under.

3. Moti Lal Nehru Inter College, Kaundhiyara, District Allahabad is a recognised institution imparting education upto intermediate classes and is governed by provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as "1921 Act"), U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "1982 Act") and U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "1971 Act"). Petitioner Vidya Kant Tiwari was appointed as Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) on 1.8.1994 and was promoted as Lecturer (Hindi) on 16.2.2004. The date of appointment of petitioner is not disputed by anyone. The real issue revolves around the date of appointment of respondent No. 5. He was appointed on ad hoc basis on 1.7.1991. His salary was not paid. He filed Writ Petition No. 14363 of 1992 wherein an interim order was passed directing payment of salary pursuant whereto it was paid. Writ Petition was disposed vide judgment dated 4.3.2005 whereby this Court directed authorities concerned to consider his case for regularization under Section 33-C of 1982 Act in accordance with law pursuant whereto respondent No. 2 passed order on 9.10.2006 regularizing respondent No. 5 on the post of Lecturer with effect from 20.4.1998. It is on the basis thereof, respondent No. 5 has been held senior to petitioner.

4. The question is "whether this decision of respondent No. 2 is correct and in accordance with law."

5. Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, Senior Advocate, has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of writ petition insofar as it challenges the very order of regularization of respondent No. 5 on the ground that in the garb of challenging seniority, petitioner cannot raise an issue with regard to validity of appointment of respondent No. 5. The challenge made to regularization order dated 9.10.2006 is not maintainable. He further submitted that since the date of his appointment (i.e. 1991), in the attendance register and elsewhere name of respondent No. 5 has always been shown senior and above petitioner, therefore, after more than a decade and half petitioner cannot be allowed to assail this well established and settled inter se relationship of petitioner and respondent No. 5 regarding seniority. In this respect he relied on certain authorities which I shall discuss at appropriate stage.

6. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel for petitioner, on the contrary stated that appointment being void ab initio, it would confer no right upon respondent No. 5 either to hold the post or to claim salary. Anything done by the authorities so as to put on a cloak of legality upon such Act is wholly non est and illegal. It would not validate an Act which is ex facie void, has no consequence in law. Such an order can always be challenged at any point of time. He further submitted that petitioner's seniority was never determined vis-a-vis respondent No. 5. Earlier, he had, therefore, no cause of action or reason to challenge either appointment of respondent No. 5 or consequential seniority. He has come to this Court only when respondents attempted to make respondent No. 5 senior to him.

7. In my view, following issues generate for adjudication of dispute in the present case :

(i) Whether the alleged ad hoc appointment of responde