The court held that the phrase "another position involving similar work" in Statute 11.34 (4) of the Kanpur University should be interpreted to mean that the work done by a lecturer while on leave need not be identical to his work in the college, but it had to be somewhat akin to it.

B. L. Yadav, J.

1. WHETHER the petitioner was senior to respondent No. 4, Dr. A. K. Srivastava whether (old) statute 11.34 (4) of the Kanpur University was relevant or sub-clause (e) of Statute 18.10 of the First Statute was applicable, or Statute 18.16 (under chapter 50 (1)/1.02 (I) was applicable; and in case statute 11.34 (4) was applicable, whether the services rendered by respondent no. 4 as Senior Agricultural Economist in the Government of Surinam, while he was on leave, was in public interest, and whether it was a position involving similar work, are the short but significant questions for determination in the present petition filed by Dr. Shyam Lal Gupta under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking relief for Issuance of a writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 31-8-89, 3-5-88 and 22-7-86, passed by respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

2. SHORN of details the portrayal of essential facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Kulbhaskar Ashram Post Graduate Degree College, Allahabad, (for short the College) on 5-11-1965 while respondent no. 4 Dr. A. K. Srivastava was appointed as Lecturer on 20-7- 1965. Obviously respondent no. 4 was; senior to the petitioner. The circumstances, however, took a dramatic turn when respondent no. 4 proceeded on an assignment as Senior Agricultural Economist, offered by the Government of Surinam (South America) and he was serving there since 20-11-81. On 20-9-84 as he rejoined the service the petitioner raised a dispute that he was senior to respondent no. 4 as the latter was not granted leave in public Interest nor his lien was protected, nor the nature of service rendered in Surinam involved similar work.

The averments of the petitioner were refuted. The Principal of the College by the impugned order (Annexure-2 to the petition) decided the case in favour of respondent no, 4. Thereafter the matter was taken by the petitioner to the Vice-Chancellor, who also by the impugned order dated 3-5-88, maintained the order of Principal and the petitioner's representation under section 68 of the U. P. State University Act also met the same fate.

3. DR. R. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner was senior to respondent no. 4, and that the Statute 11.34 (4) of the Old Statute of the Kanpur University was not relevant, rather other Statutes indicated above were relevant, and that as the services rendered by respondent no. 4 while he was holding; another assignment since 2-11-81 to 20-9-84 as Senior Rural Economist in the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Surinam, was not similar to the duties performed by him while in the College, consequently that period has to be excluded and in case that period is excluded the petitioner becomes certainly senior to him.

4. LEARNED counsel for respondent no. 5 including the learned Standing Counsel and the counsel appearing for the Chancellor, on the other hand, urged that seniority of the petitioner has to be decided after taking into account the nature of service rendered by respondent no. 4, while he was abroad in connection with his assignment as Senior Agricultural Economist in the Government of Surinam and the services similar to what he was rendering while in the college. The details have been indicated in the counter affidavit and also in the impugned order, particularly the certificates granted by the Deputy Director, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Surinam (Annexures C.A. 1, 2 and 3), which would indicate that the duties performed by respondent no. 4 were similar to those performed by him while he was in the college. The lien and seniority of respondent no. 5 were also protected as similar assurance was given and certificate was granted by the Principal of the College in consultation with the Committee of Management and other relevant authorities before respondent no. 4 proceeded on leave. In this view of the matter the petitioner cannot be senior to respondent