Back
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Radheshyam – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
Case called out in the revised list.
2. Heard Sri Kushmondeya Shahi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manoj Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1, to 3 and Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6. No other counsel is present and no adjournment of the case has been sought.
3. By means of Writ-A No. 18846 of 2018 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - Ravendra Singh, has challenged the validity of an order dated 7.8.2018, passed by the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Lucknow, rejecting the petitioner's representation dated 23.3.2018, through which he had claimed to be placed in seniority list above the respondent Nos. 5 to 7, and had claimed payment of salary on the post of Trained Assistant Teacher with effect from 27.10.2004.
4. Writ-A No. 6890 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioner - Radheshyam, who is opposite party No. 6 in Writ-A No. 18846 of 2018, claiming payment of contributory provident fund, pension and other retiral benefits and also arrears of salary for the period 14.11.2005 to 10.9.2018.
5. Writ-A No. 6890 of 2024 has apparently been
Seniority among teachers is determined by the date of substantive appointment and possession of requisite qualifications at that time, with untrained teachers not equating their service with trained ....
Seniority among teachers is determined by the date of acquiring training qualifications, not merely by the date of appointment.
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....
The court determined that seniority in 'C' category should be assigned from the date of obtaining relevant qualifications, not the initial appointment date.
Point of Law : Education Officer (Secondary) can exercise jurisdiction to determine any inter se dispute as regards seniority that has been referred to him under Rule 12(3) of the said Rules till suc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the provisions of Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Employee of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Rules, 198....
The court ruled that only approved service counts for seniority, while unapproved appointments do not confer such rights, emphasizing timely challenges to adverse orders.
The court affirmed that appointments made prior to new qualification rules remain valid, emphasizing continuity of service and entitlement to salary for teachers who later acquired necessary qualific....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
