KAUSHAL KISHORE SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay condoned in filing the Special Leave Petition, the leave having been granted earlier.

(2.) The appellant, who was appointed as a Teacher in the LT Grade of a private aided educational institution, assails the order of the learned single Judge of Allahabad High Court, which was upheld in appeal by the Division Bench. The appellant's case is that he was appointed to the LT Grade earlier than the respondent No. 4, and therefore, he was rightly declared to be senior on a representation being made to the Deputy Director of Education by order dated 18-7-1994. The said order could not have been interfered with by the High Court in the writ petition, and as such High Court committed serious error in interfering with the aforesaid order of the Deputy Director. It is also further contended that any finding or observation of the High Court in relation to the legality of the appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Lecturer as well as to the further post of Principal should not stand on the way of the appellant, if otherwise is entitled to challenge the same.

(3.) It transpires that while both the appellant and respondent No. 4 were continuing as a Teacher in the LT Grade, the Managing Committee of the School passed a Resolution purported to have been passed on 1-8-1981 promoting the respondent No. 4 to the post of Lecturer. The aforesaid Resolution appears to have been approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 10-4-1991. According to the appellant, the Resolution in question was in fact an ante-dated one and was passed only in 1991 purporting to be one under 1-8-1981 and the said Resolution could not have been passed in appointing people to the post of Lecturer as there was no vacancy available at that point of time. It is further contended by the appellant that in fact in an ancillary proceedings a writ petition being filed by some of the appointees on the post of the basis of very same Resolution for payment of salary, the High Court has already given its finding with regard to the absence of vacancy, and as such so-called appointment of respondent No. 4 in the Lecturer grade could not have been regularised by any finding of the High Court in the present writ petition which had been filed by respondent No. 4.