SHITLA PRASAD SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SENIORITY is the bone of contention.

(2.) THE dispute centres round the question as to whether the High Court was right in affirming the view taken by the District Inspector of Schools that Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were senior to the appellant in the lecturer's grade in the Kashiraj Maha Vidyalaya. Inter College, Orai, District Varanasi.

(3.) THE appellant was initially working as an Assistant Teacher in the aforesaid institution which was upgraded into an Intermediate College under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act. THE appellant started teaching Hindi in the Intermediate classes upon the institution being upgraded, though he was not qualified to be appointed as a lecturer in Hindi as per the relevant regulations*l which enjoined that the minimum educational qualification for being appointed as a lecturer in Hindi was M.A. in Hindi and B. A. with Sanskrit whereas the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification of B. A. in Sanskrit. It is not in dispute that the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification viz. B. A. degree in Sanskrit and was therefore not entitled to be appointed in the lecturer's grade as lecturer (Hindi) having regard to the prohibition contained in S. 16-F of the Intermediate Education Act.*2 THE appellant however could have been appointed as a lecturer in Hindi if he was exempted from possessing such qualifications, in exercise of powers under sub-sec. (i) of S. 16-E of the Act.*3 THE appellant made an application for exemption as envisaged by S. 16-E of the Act. This application was granted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. by its order dated 23/07/1963. THE contention of the appellant is that though the Board had actually granted exemption only on 23/07/1963, he must be deemed to have been exempted from 4/11/1960, the date on which he made the application for exemption. If the appellant is right in his submission that although he was factually exempted by the order of 23/07/1963 he must be deemed to have been exempted with retrospective effect from 4/11/1960, the appellant must succeed. If this contention is considered to be untenable the appellant must fail. THE High Court has taken the view that the appellant is entitled to be treated as having become duly qualified with the actual date of the grant of exemption on 23/07/1963 and that he cannot be treated as having been granted exemption with retrospective effect. In this view of the matter the appellant's seniority vis-a-vis Respondents 5 and 6 has been computed on the basis that the appellant was appointed on 23/07/1963 when he became qualified for being appointed to the lecturer's grade. THE appellant has contended that the High Court has committed an error in not accepting his plea and has reiterated the same, submission before this Court.