SUDAMA SINGH Vs. NATH SARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SPECIAL leave granted. The appeal is heard.

(2.) THE appellant, Sudama Singh, and Respondent 1,Nath Saran Singh, were both appointed as Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade in Gandhi Inter college, Chilkahar, District Ballia with effect from the same date, i.e., 8/07/1967 and were placed on probation for one year. Respondent I was promoted as Lecturer in Hindi on ad hoc basis with effect from Mar. 1, 1976 by the Committee of Management and this action of the Committee of Management received the approval of the District Inspector of Schools on Oct. 5, 1976. On Nov. 20, 1976 the District Inspector of Schools again made an order promoting both the appellant and Respondent 1 as Lecturers in Civics and Hindi respectively. THE promotions, referred to above, had been made on an ad hoc basis. Likewise a large number of teachers, who were working in the educational institutions which were governed by the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') had been appointed or promoted on an ad hoc basis and the question of regularisation of their services was engaging the attention of the State Government during the relevant time. As a consequence of the decision of the State Government an ordinance entitled the Uttar Pradesh Education Laws Amendment Ordinance, 1977 (U.P. Ordinance No.5 of 1977) was promulgated on 21/04/1977. By the said Ordinance a large number of provisions in four of the laws in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh concerning education were amended. One of the laws which was amended by the said Ordinance was the Act. By the Ordinance a new provision, namely, S. 16GG was introduced into the Act. THE Ordinance was replaced by the Uttar Pradesh Education Laws Amendment Act, 1977. S. 16GG, which was introduced into the Act by the Ordinance, was allowed to remain in operation by the Uttar Pradesh Education Laws Amendment Act, 1977. THE relevant part of S. 16GG of the Act reads as follows:

(3.) WHILE the 1st respondent claimed seniority over the appellant on the basis of his appointment or promotion made on Mar. 1, 1976, the appellant claimed that he being older than the 1st respondent was entitled to be treated as senior to the 1st respondent by virtue of the second part of cl. (b) of Regn. 3(1) of the Regulations framed under the Act which provided that if two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date, seniority should be determined on the basis of age.