SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 1616

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, JJ.
Lal Mani - Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Special Appeal No. 681 of 2023
Decided On : 15-12-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rahul Agarwal, Abhishek Kumar Saroj.
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi, Shivendu Ojha.

The benefit of pay-scale and designation granted to the appellant remained personal and did not amount to his substantive appointment as a Lecturer.

Headnote:

Seniority - Appointment and Promotion - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 - 28.02.1990, 25.10.2000 - The court discussed the determination of inter-se seniority between the appellant and the respondent/writ petitioner. The court analyzed the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982, along with the Government Orders dated 28.02.1990 and 25.10.2000. It concluded that the benefit of pay-scale and designation granted to the appellant remained personal and did not amount to his substantive appointment as a Lecturer.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Lal Mani, sought transfer to a different institution and claimed the benefit of two Government Orders to be appointed as a Lecturer. The respondent/writ petitioner challenged the appellant's seniority on the post of Lecturer, which was granted by the District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the benefit of pay-scale and designation granted to the appellant remained personal and did not amount to his substantive appointment as a Lecturer. The court modified the orders of the District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj and the learned Single Judge, ensuring that the benefits granted to the appellant would remain personal to him.

Issues: The core issue involved the determination of inter-se seniority between the appellant and the respondent/writ petitioner, based on the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982, along with the Government Orders dated 28.02.1990 and 25.10.2000.

Ratio Decidendi: The benefit of pay-scale and designation granted to the appellant remained personal and did not amount to his substantive appointment as a Lecturer. Any benefits granted to the appellant by virtue of the Government Orders would remain personal to him.

Final Decision: The court modified the orders of the District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj and the learned Single Judge, ensuring that the benefits granted to the appellant would remain personal to him.

JUDGMENT :

1. This intra-court appeal is filed by the appellant, Lal Mani, against the judgment and order dated 25.08.2023, passed by the Single Judge in Writ-A No.10696 of 2023 (Jeet Lal Saroj Vs. The State of U.P. And 3 Others).

2. The appellant was the respondent in the writ petition filed before the learned Single Judge. He was appointed as 'Assistant Teacher' in 'Physical Education' on 05.10.2006 in L.T. Grade. He sought transfer to Saraswati Shiksha Sadan Intermediate College, Marron, Handia, District Prayagraj (herinafter referred to as 'Institution') and the same was allowed vide order dated 07.01.2016. The appellant consequently joined on 01.02.2016.

3. As against the case of appellant, the respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on substantive basis on 08.12.2010. His appointment was pursuant to the recruitment exercise undertaken by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board vide Advertisement No.1 of 2009. The respondent/writ petitioner actually joined on 04.01.2011 in a different institution. He too sought transfer, which was allowed on 28.06.2019 and he acutally joined on 04.07.2019.

4. The substantive post of Principal in the institution fell vacant. It transpires that the appellant claimed benefit of two Government Orders dated 28.02.1990 and 25.10.2000 and asserted that he is entitled to the post of Lecturer w.e.f. 05.10.2016, upon completion of ten years' service in the L.T. Grade. The claim of appellant in that regard was intially rejected on 26.11.2018. Certain proceedings were then initiated by the State Scheduled Castes Commission and the Authorities had a change of heart and a fresh order came to be passed on 14.05.2023, granting the benefit of the post of Lecturer to the appellant w.e.f. 05.10.2016. Once that was so, the appellant was treated senior as a Lecturer to the respondent/writ petitioner and was consequently allowed to officiate as Principal. We may note that under the applicable provisions upon transfer of a teacher from one institition to another, he is to be placed at the bottom of the seniority.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Prayagraj, the respondent/writ petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.10696 of 2023 (Jeet Lal Saroj Vs. The State of U.P. And 3 Others), which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgement and order dated 25.08.2023. Thus aggrieved, the respondent in the writ petition has challenged the judgment and order of learned Single Judge by filing the present special appeal.

6. Shri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the object of the two Government Orders is to grant benefit of higher pay-scale to a teacher placed in a Lower Grade, consequent upon satisfactory working of specificed length i.e. ten years, wherein he has taught students of a higher class. In order to appreciate the contentions so advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, it would be relevant to take note of the two Government Orders, which are relied upon by the appellant in support of its case. The first Government Order in that regard dated 28.02.1990 is reproduced hereinafter:-

The Second Government Order, relied upon dated 25th October, 2000 is also reproduced hereinafter-

7. The core issue involved in the case is with regard to the determination of inter-se seniority between the appellant and the respondent/writ petitioner. The seniority on the post of Lecturer is to be governed by Regulation 3 framed under Chapter-II of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1921'). Regulation 3 (1) being relevant is reproduced hereinafter:-

    "3(1). The Committee of Management of every institution shall cause a seniority list of teachers to be prepared in accordance with the following provisions:-

(a) The seniority list shall be prepared separately for each grade of teachers whether permanent or temporary, on any substantive post;

(b) Seniority of teachers in a grade shall be deter

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top