The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seniority of a teacher appointed on a substantive basis is to be determined with reference to the date of approval, not the date of joining.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Mohan Srivastava, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri Siddharth Khare for the petitioner-respondent.

2. This intra-court appeal is against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.11.2014 in Writ-A No.41068 of 1996 whereby the order dated 26.11.1996 passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Agra determining the inter se seniority of the writ petitioner, Smt. Satya Bhama Dubey (the first respondent) and Smt. Sushila Sharma (the second respondent -respondent no.5 in the writ petition) has been quashed, holding the writ petitioner Smt. Satya Bhama Dubey senior to Smt. Sushila Sharma.

3. In addition to above, the learned Single Judge upon finding that due to wrong determination of the seniority, the writ petitioner was deprived of her appointment as an ad hoc Principal of the Institution proceeded to award compensation of Rs.2 lacs to be paid by the State Government. Further, the learned Single Judge directed that the salary of the petitioner shall be fixed treating her as officiating Principal of the Institution with effect from 01.07.1996 notionally and based thereon, the post-retiral benefits like pension etc. be revised and re-fixed.

4. As there appeared some confusion with regard to the scope of the appeal as to whether it was limited to the award of compensation or it was to challenge the entire order of the learned Single Judge, we required the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions in that regard.

5. On instructions, the learned Standing Counsel stated that the appeal be treated as an appeal against the entire judgment and order of the learned Single Judge and not confined to the compensation awarded.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that inter se seniority of Assistant Teachers in an aided institution is to be determined as per the provisions of Regulation 3 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short 1921 Act).

7. Regulation 3(1)(b) provides that 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 to be appointed on the same date, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age.

8. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that there is no dispute that the appointment letters to both the writ petitioner and the fifth respondent in the writ petition were issued on the same date and that the writ petitioner was older in age to the fifth respondent but, what is also not in dispute is that, the fifth respondent joined service on 30.11.1972, i.e. on the date of issuance of the letter of appointment whereas the writ petitioner joined the institution on 01.12.1972. In such circumstances, the appointment shall take effect from the date of joining, therefore, the educational authorities were justified in taking the view that the fifth respondent in the writ petition was senior to the writ petitioner. It has also been argued that assuming that the view taken by the educational authorities was not the correct view, there was no justification to award compensation to the writ petitioner, particularly when the writ petitioner had not pleaded any malafides against the educational authorities and, otherwise, the action of the educational authorities was bonafide based on their understanding of the legal position.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the contesting first respondent submitted that the inter se seniority is to be determined on the basis of the date of substantive appointment. There is nothing in the regulations or in any document brought on record, or relied upon by the respondents in the writ petition, to indicate that the appointment would take effect from the date of joining. He submitted that under Chapter II Regulation 18 of the Regulations framed under the 1921 Act, the management after selection has to issue an order of appointment by registered