Hon’ble Yashwant Varma, J.—The appellant, a lecturer in Physics and the seventh respondent (appellant in Special Appeal No. 831 of 2015), a lecturer in Chemistry have preferred these appeals seeking to assail the judgement rendered by a learned Single Judge on 9 October 2015. The appellant and the seventh respondent applied for being handed over charge of Officiating Principal in the Inter College, Jatpura, Muquimpur, District Bulandshahr consequent to the Principal having retired and a vacancy consequentially coming into being on 30 June 2014. The post of Officiating Principal, and on which there is no dispute, is to be filled from amongst the seniormost lecturer in the institution in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 (1982 Act). Pursuant to a direction issued by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 4 September 2014, Writ Petition No. 37077 of 2014; Vir Singh v. State of U.P. and others, the District Inspector of Schools undertook an adjudication with respect to the inter se seniority of the appellant and the seventh respondent. By his order dated 8 May 2015, the District Inspector of Schools recorded that since the appellant had entered the services of the institution on 25 September 2006 and the seventh respondent had come to be promoted on 31 May 2007, the appellant would rank senior. He accordingly proceeded to direct the management of the institution to frame and submit its proposal for appointment of an Officiating Principal. It was this order of 8 May 2015 which formed subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition preferred by the seventh respondent. The writ petition, it may be noted, additionally challenged orders dated 17 August 2006 and 12 September 2006 in terms of which the appellant came to be adjusted in the institution on the post of Lecturer (Physics).

2. The learned Single Judge by the judgment impugned before us has proceeded to quash the orders dated 12 September 2006, 17 August 2006 and 8 May 2015. The learned Single Judge concluded that the adjustment of the appellant in the institution was contrary to the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Prashant Kumar Katiyar v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (1) ADJ 523 (FB) and that therefore he would not be entitled to claim a valid appointment in his favour or seniority over the seventh respondent. Consequent to the above, the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 8 May 2015 also came to be set aside.

3. Insofar as the seventh respondent is concerned, the learned Single Judge held that admittedly his promotion had come about on 30 May 2007 consequent to the regularisation and appointment of one Indrapal Singh as Principal of the institution. However, the learned Single Judge found that the regularisation and appointment of Indrapal Singh had been cancelled by an order of 30 June 2008. He, therefore, held that since the appointment and regularisation of Indrapal Singh stood cancelled, he stood reverted to the post of lecturer and consequently the vacancy against which the seventh respondent was promoted ceased to exist. On the above premise, the learned Single Judge held that the seventh respondent consequently stood reverted as an LT Grade teacher. It is aggrieved by the said observations that the seventh respondent has also preferred an appeal, Special Appeal No. 831 of 2015, against the judgment dated 9 October 2015. Since the claim of the appellant and the seventh respondent have both been ruled upon by the learned Single Judge by the judgment impugned, we have proceeded to hear both the appeals together.

4. Before coming to the rival submissions which have been advanced before us and considering the fact that the dispute itself has a history, it would be apposite to trace briefly the manner in which the appellant and the seventh respondent came to hold their posts in the institution in question. We accordingly proceed to record the following facts