Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Heard Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. None appears for the respondent No. 5.

The petitioner and respondent No. 5 were appointed as lecturer in the respondent institution vide order dated 30.11.1972 and there is no dispute in this regard. It is also not in dispute that in pursuance to the aforesaid order of substantive appointment, the petitioner joined on the post in question on 1.12.1972 whereas respondent No. 5 joined earlier, i.e., 30.11.1972. In paragraph 13 of the writ petition a categorical assertion has been made that the aforesaid appointment of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 were approved by the competent authority by the same order of the same date passed sometime in December, 1972. This fact has not been categorically and specifically denied by any of the respondents.

2. A seniority list of lecturers was issued by the management in the year 1981-82 wherein the petitioner was shown as senior to the respondent No. 5. Thereafter, on 11-3-1985, an order was passed by the respondent No. 2 declaring the respondent No. 5 as senior to the petitioner on the ground that the respondent No. 5 has joined her service prior to the petitioner, as already mentioned in the earlier part of this judgement.

3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the aforesaid order dated 11.3.1985 which was disposed of on 22.1.1996 setting aside the said order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice with liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity of hearing.

In pursuance to the aforesaid, the Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra, issued a notice to the petitioner and other concerned on 26.4.1996. In response thereto, the petitioner herein, replied and the other concerned persons also filed the reply.

In the meantime, while the proceedings were pending before the Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra, the regular incumbent working on the post of Principal retired on 30.6.1997.

On 1.7.1997, an order was passed by the management, appointing respondent No. 5 as officiating Principal of the institution which was approved by the official respondent.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner herein, filed a writ petition before this Court which was disposed of vide judgment dated 5.8.1996 with a direction to the Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Agra Region, Agra, to decide the inter se seniority dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 5 within a stipulated period.

5. In pursuance to the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 26.11.1996 was passed, wherein, the respondent No. 5 has been held to be senior to the petitioner, consequently, her officiation on the post of Principal of the institution has been affirmed.

6. The contention of Shri Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the contesting parties having been substantively appointed by an order of the same date and such appointment having been approved by the competent authority on the same date by the same order, it is their age which would be the determining factor in the matter of seniority, in view of the provisions contained in Regulation 3(1)(b) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short “Act of 1921”). The contention is that the petitioner being elder in age was senior and his seniority was wrongly upset by the respondents resulting in officiating appointment of respondent No. 5 and deprivation of right of the petitioner to officiate as Adhoc Principal and causing financial loss to her. The petitioner has mentioned her date of birth in paragraph 9 of the writ petition as 10.8.1939, whereas the date of birth of respondent No. 5 is mentioned as 14.1.1942. He contends that this fact has not been denied in the counter-affidavit.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that keeping