Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1284
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.
Satya Prakash - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondent
Writ -A No. 26249 of 2018, Writ -A No. 36980 of 2017
Decided On : 03-01-2019
For the Petitioner: Alok Dwivedi
For the Respondent: C.S.C.,Vashishtha Tiwari
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of seniority should be based on substantive appointment and age, as per Regulation 3(1)(b) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
Headnote:
Seniority Dispute - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Regulation 3(1)(b)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the seniority of petitioner Satya Prakash and respondent Smt. Suman Devi. The issue arose from orders issued by the District Inspector of Schools and the Joint Director of Education, which were challenged in writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the determination of seniority should be based on the substantive appointment and age, as per Regulation 3(1)(b) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It affirmed the order of the Joint Director of Education dated 21st August, 2018, quashed the subsequent order of 13th November, 2018, and directed the District Inspector of Schools and the Committee of Management to pass appropriate consequential orders.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of inter se seniority between the petitioner and the respondent, based on their appointments and age, as per the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Regulation 3(1)(b) of Chapter-II of the Act, which specifies that seniority of teachers in a grade should be determined based on their substantive appointment and age when appointed on the same date.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the Joint Director of Education dated 13th November, 2018, affirmed the determination of seniority under the order of 21st August, 2018, and directed the District Inspector of Schools and the Committee of Management to pass appropriate consequential orders within six weeks.
JUDGMENT :
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.
1. These two writ petitions essentially raised a dispute with regard to inter se seniority of petitioner Satya Prakash vis-a-vis Smt. Suman Devi respondent no.5.
2. The first Writ Petition No.36980 of 2017 questions an order dated 4.8.2017, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Agra, contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition. By this order the District Inspector of Schools, Agra, has issued a direction to the Management of D.A.V. Inter College, Moti Katra, Agra, stating that in respect of issue of seniority since complaints were made at different levels, therefore, the Principal, Government Inter College, Agra was called upon to conduct an enquiry, who has submitted his report, wherein Sri Satya Prakash has been held to be senior to Smt. Suman Devi, and therefore, signatures of Sri Satya Prakash has been attested as Principal of the institution. This order has been challenged by Smt. Suman Devi on the ground that an opportunity of hearing has been denied to her, and that being the senior most Lecturer, she was already offered charge on the post of Officiating Principal and her signatures were also attested, which fact has been completely ignored. The order is also challenged on the ground that the enquiry officer was appointed under an order of the District Magistrate, Agra, who had no jurisdiction in the matter. This order has been stayed by this Court on 18.8.2017, vide following orders:-
“The contention of the petitioner is that the District Inspector of Schools, Agra appears to be oblivious of the statutory provision as he has got the seniority dispute decided by the Principal of a Government Inter College, who is completely outsider to the scheme of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act. The appropriate authority under Regulation 3 of Chapter II of the Regulations is the Committee of Management and an aggrieved party can approach the District Inspector of Schools.
From the impugned order it is evident that the dispute of seniority has been considered by a Principal of the Government Inter College and on the basis of the report submitted by the Principal, the District Inspector of Schools has passed the order without application of mind.
The matter needs consideration.
The petitioner has made out a prima facie case.
Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notices on behalf of the first to third respondents.
Issue notice to the fourth and fifth respondents returnable on 11th October, 2017.
Steps be taken within ten days.
Counter affidavit be filed by all the respondents on or before the next date fixed.
List the case on 11th October, 2017.
Till the next date of listing the effect and operation of the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Agra dated 04th August, 2017 is kept in abeyance.”
3. The aforesaid order was challenged by filing Special Appeal No.495 of 2017, which has been allowed vide following orders passed on 18.9.2017:-
“After the matter was heard at some length Sri V.K. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri G.K. Singh, Advocate on behalf of petitioner and Sri Umesh Narayan Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents contended before us that having regard to the facts as borne out from record, the learned Single Judge should have examined in the facts of the case as to whether the petitioner or the appellant who is respondent in the writ petition was liable to be treated as senior irrespective of the order of Deputy Inspector of Schools which in turn was based on the report of the Principal, Government Inter College inasmuch as if an order of the writ court has the effect of restoring an illegal order then the writ court is not required to interfere. It has also been impressed upon us that we may not address ourselves to the merits of the claim as set up by the parties at t
