IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that seniority is determined based on substantive appointment and age, as specified in the regulations of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, overriding the time of joining. Additionally, the principle that special laws override general laws in specific matters was emphasized.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner who is working as Assistant Teacher in attached primary section of an intermediate college, namely, Mangatram Kanya Higher Secondary School, Patla, district Ghaziabad, is aggrieved by decision of the District Inspector of Schools dated 30.12.2016 holding respondent no. 5, namely, Ms. Anupama Tyagi as a senior to the petitioner. Both Assistant Teachers were appointed with approval order issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad on 30.12.2016. Since petitioner and 5th respondent were simultaneously appointed in the institution and their substantive appointment is with effect from the same date, an issue arose as to the inter se seniority.

2. Petitioner is while claiming his seniority on the basis of her date of birth recorded as 5th June, 1981, the 5th respondent claims seniority on the basis of her joining in the forenoon of 30.12.2016. It is admitted to both the parties that petitioner joined in the afternoon of 30.12.2016 whereas 5th respondent joined in the forenoon of 30.12.2016. Upon the matter being remitted under the order of this Court dated 21.6.2021 passed in Writ A No. 4244 of 2021, the Regional Joint Director of Education proceeded to decide seniority taking as an admitted position that both the petitioners were appointed on the same date and the petitioner was senior in age to the respondent no. 5. The Regional Joint Director of Education found that rules applicable to U.P. Hindi Sansthan, namely, U.P. Hindi Sansthan Employees Service Rules No. 1983 to be applicable as according to the order of the Regional Joint Director of Education, the relevant regulations contained under Rule 3(1)(b) of Chapter II of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 do not contemplate a situation where two teachers join the same date but had different point of time that is forenoon and afternoon.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that law is well settled that special law will override the general law if any. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commercial Tax Officer, Rajasthan v. Binai Cements Limited and Another (2014) 8 SCC 319 and accordingly submits that Intermediate Education Act, 1921 being especially enacted for governing service conditions like seniority etc. and other incidental matters relating to teacher and employees of a recognized and aided institution under the Act, and the regulations provide for determination of seniority, the Regional Joint Director of Education was not justified in borrowing Hindi Sansthan Employees Service Rules, 1983 in determining intere se seniority. He submits that 1921 Act is a special Act whereas general rule of seniority is applicable to various other institutions. He submits that even 1983 rules of Hindi Sansthan have been especially framed for employees of Hindi Sansthan and unless and until adopted under the Act, 1921, they cannot be applied directly or even on principles.

4. Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondents that since Intermediate Education Act, 1921 does not contemplate a situation of dispute of seniority between two teachers in the event one has joined in forenoon and the other joined in afternoon, it could have been taken out of general provisions and for this purpose he has taken the Court to the relevant part i.e. paragraph 5 (the finding part) of the order dated 21.12.2021 passed by Regional Joint Director of Education.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, three admitted position emerge out :

i) both petitioner and 5th respondent were appointed on the same date with approval of the District Inspector of Schools on 30.12.2016 which is their date of substantive appointment;

ii) petitioner and 5th respondents joined on the same date in the institution, however, 5th respondent in the forenoon and petitioner joined in the afternoon;

iii) both the petitioner and 5th respondent agree that their service conditions are governed