Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The controversy involved in the present case pertains to the seniority between the petitioner and the 6th respondent. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on compassionate ground on 17.4.1996 as an Assistant Clerk in the Institution and ever since then he continued in the institution as such, whereas, the 6th respondent was appointed on 27.11.1992 though on compassionate ground but on a supernumerary post of clerk as per the then existing regulations which provided for Class III appointment on a supernumerary post as well. Admittedly, the 6th respondent was granted appointment on a supernumerary post in the Institution namely Janta Inter College, Nauhjheel, Mathura in pursuance to which he reported for joining on 1.1.1993. Its appears that later on he was again adjusted/absorbed against regular vacancy in the petitioner's Institution namely Rastriya Inter College, Raya on 30th September 2000. So there is no issue with regard to the absorption of the petitioner against the substantive vacancy on 30th September 2000 in the Institution. The seniority, therefore, came to be determined by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 02.02.2008 after conducting detailed enuiry and hearing the rival parties and the petitioner was held senior to the 6th respondent on the ground that his substantive appointment in the cadre was earlier in point of time. Since, the order dated 02.02.2008 was coming in the way of approval, the District Inspector of Schools first passed the impugned order dated 20.3.2008, cancelling his earlier order and then granted his approval to the promotion of 6th respondent as Head-Clerk vide order dated 30.4.2008.

3. The matter of absorption of the 6th respondent in the Institution, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been subject matter of litigation before this Court, however as on date he is continuing in the Institution under the interim order passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by him bearing no. 21622 of 2001.

4. It is, therefore, clear that vacancy of the Head-clerk that had fallen vacant in the year 2007-2008 became primarily a bone of contention and resultantly the question of inter-se seniority between the petitioner and the 6th respondent became subject matter of contest before the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 02.02.2008 after conducting the detailed hearing held the petitioner to be senior most, this order has been brought on record as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. It appears that thereafter the 6th respondent wrote some letter in the form of objection before the District Inspector of Schools against the order passed by him, on 04.02.2008 and in view of the objection by an ex-parte order the District Inspector of Schools stayed his own order dated 22.02.2008 vide order dated 05.02.2008. Thereafter, it appears that the District Inspector of Schools had proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of some letter issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Secondary Allahabad dated 07.03.2008 in which it was stated that the 6th respondent was appointed on 01.01.1993 whereas the petitioner was appointed on 07.04.1996 and, therefore, in his opinion since the appointment of 6th respondent was prior in point of time, he was to be considered as senior. This letter of the Deputy Director of Education was in the form of advise/guidelines to the District Inspector of Schools and District Inspector of Schools, proceeded on the advise/guidelines of the Deputy Director of Education and did not consider it necessary to afford even opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thus in an ex-parte manner cancelled his own order dated 02.02.2008 whereby the petitioner was earlier held to be senior to the 6th respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court towards paragraph 23K of the wr