The date of substantive appointment for determining seniority under Regulation 3(f) of Chapter II of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act is the date of approval by the District Inspector of Schools under Section 16-G, not the date of joining service.

K.C. Agarwal, J.

This writ petition has been filed by Smt. Omi Bala Nigam challenging the order of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Jhansi Region, Jhansi, dated 16-4-1983 holding that Respondent No. 4, Smt. Satyawati Sharma, was senior to the Petitioner under Regulation 3(f) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act.

2. The facts relating to the present writ petition are briefly stated these: The Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 were appointed by an order dated 27-6-1964 by the Committee of Management of Sri Lok Manya Tilak Girls Inter College, Jhansi. The Petitioner was appointed for the post of Sanskrit teacher for Intermediate classes whereas appointment of Respondent No. 4 was for the post of teacher in Civics. Both of these teachers were intimated that they should join their services on 17-7-1964 or immediately thereafter. Before approval of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools was obtained, Respondent No. 4 joined on 1-7-1964 whereas the Petitioner joined on 6-7-1964.

3. After sometime a controversy relating to the seniority inter-se between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 arose. As required by Clause (b) of Regulation 3 of Chapter II the dispute was referred to the Committee of Management. The Committee of Management gave an opportunity to both the parties and after perusing the record held that as the Petitioner was older in age, she was entitled to be treated senior to Respondent No. 4. This was obviously done in accordance with Clause (b) of Regulation 3 of Chapter IT, which reads as follows:

Seniority of teachers in a grade shall be determined on the basis of their substantive appointment in that grade. If two or more teachers were so appointed on his same date, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age.

4. Under Clause (f) of Regulation 3 of Chapter if, the Respondent No, 4 felt aggrieved and, therefore, tiled an appeal. In the appeal the contention raised on her behalf was that she has since joined on 1-7-1964, earlier to joining of the Petitioner on 6-7-1964, therefore, in accordance with Clause (b) of Regulation 3 of Chapter IT she was entitled to be treated that the substantive appointment in that grade was earlier than that of the Petitioner. The appeal was allowed by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, By this order Respondent No. 4 was treated senior to the Petitioner.

5. Having felt dis-satisfied with the order of the appellate authority, the present writ petition was filed.

6. Before us Learned Counsel for the Petitioner raised two arguments. The first was that the appellate authority committed an error in allowing the appeal of Respondent No. 4 preferred under Clause (f) of Regulation 3 of Chapter II, The Petitioner's case was that she was prejudiced and she was not given an opportunity to put forth her case in the appeal. The second argument of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was that since approval of the appointment of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 was given by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools on 15-9-1964, the mere fact of joining the service by Respondent No. 4 on 1-7-1964 would not confer any right on her. He urged that till the approval was not given, appointment was not legal and joining of service by the Respondent-No. 4 on 1-7-1964 could not be recognised in law.

7. Shri K.N. Tripathi, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 4, tried to justify the order of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools by urging that since Respondent No. 4 had joined earlier than the Petitioner, therefore, the seniority has to be computed with effect from the date of joining. According to his submission the date of approval was immaterial and did not have any relevance so far as the question of seniority between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 is concerned.

8. After hearing counsel for the parties, we find that the Committee of Management had considered the entire circumstance and found that the Petitioner was senior to Re