Point of Law: Employment and Service matter - Re-assessment of seniority - As per Rule 3(1)(b), seniority of teachers in a grade has to be determined on basis of their substantive appointment in that grade, meaning thereby that a teacher appointed substantively at an earlier point of time would have a higher seniority vis-a-vis a teacher appointed at a later point of time.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Upendra Nath Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Neel Kamal Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pankaj Kumar Patel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4, Sri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and Sri Chandra Bhushan, learned counsel for respondent no.6.

2. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs:-

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned order dated 25.03.2017 passed by the opposite party no.3 contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to implement the impugned order dated 25.03.2017.

iii. Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

iv. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."

3. The case set forth by the petitioner is that he was initially appointed on the post of Lecturer (Bio) on adhoc basis on 25.07.1991 on account of a vacancy having arisen due to promotion of one Sri Sripal Mishra, who was working as Bio Teacher. The appointment was made in pursuance to a proposal of the Committee of Management and the same was approved by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 13.07.1991. A copy of the appointment order is Annexure-2 to the writ petition while the copy of the approval order is part of Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Subsequently, Sri Sripal Mishra retired and a resolution was passed for regularization of the petitioner on 25.07.1995 by the Committee of Management and the same was sent to the District Inspector of Schools for his approval. After long lapse of time the services of the petitioner were regularized through an order dated 03/30.12.2001 w.e.f. 30.12.2000 by the order issued by the Joint Director of Education, Lucknow. The regularization order was passed under the provisions of Section 33-F of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 1982 Act'). Copy of the order dated 03/30.12.2001 is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Prior to regularization of the petitioner, private respondent no.5, Sri Jai Ram, was appointed as a Lecturer (English).

4. A seniority list dated 25.07.1997 was issued by the management in which the name of the petitioner finds place at serial no.17 vis-a-vis respondent no.5 whose name finds place at serial no.21. Subsequent thereto, another seniority list dated 02.12.2005 was issued in which the name of the petitioner finds place at serial no.9 vis-a-vis respondent no.5 whose name finds place at serial no.13. The petitioner claims that a seniority list dated 11.12.2006 was issued in which the name of the petitioner finds place at serial no.6 vis-a-vis respondent no.5 whose name finds place at serial no.7. Subsequent thereto, another seniority list dated 08.11.2012 was issued in which the name of the petitioner found place at serial no.5 vis-a-vis respondent no.5 whose name finds place at serial no.8. It is also contended that both the petitioner as well as private respondent no.5 signed the said seniority lists dated 11.12.2006 and 08.11.2012. Copies of the said seniority lists have been filed cumulatively as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It is claimed that sometimes in the year 2015, respondent no.5 preferred a representation to the official respondents raising a dispute about the assignment of the seniority to the petitioner over respondent no.5 by contending that as the petitioner had been regularized in service as Lecturer through an order dated 03/30.12.2001 w.e.f. 30.12.2000 while respondent no.5 had been appointed as Lecturer (English) on 25.01.1996, as such, he was senior to the petitioner and thus prayed for re-assignment of the seniority. When the official respondents did not do anything in the matter, th