B L VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main controversy that is raised in this writ petition is in between the petitioner and respondent No.5. who is senior in service. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents No. 1 to 4 to treat the petitioner senior to respondent No 5 and to grant Selection Grade of P.G.T. to the petitioner by virtue of his being senior to the respondent No.5 in service.

(2.) The case pleaded in this writ petition is that the petitioner and the respondent No.5 are working as P.G.T in the Rajputana Rifles Heros Memorial Higher Secondary School and are the two senior- most teachers in the Grade. According to the petitioner, both of them were promoted to the post of T.G.T. on 7.7.1967 with the upgradation of the school from the Middle standard to Higher Secondary School. They were also promoted to the post of P.G.T. on the same date.

(3.) By an order dated 26.11.1971. the respondent No. 1 created certain posts of Selection Grade including in the Grade of P.G.T. In furtherance of such creation of post, one post of Selection Grade of P.G.T. came to be created in the respondent No.3 school in which the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 were working. The Managing Committee of the aforesaid school interviewed the petitioner and respondent No.5 on 9 S. 1973 for recommending the name for appointment to the aforesaid post in the Selection Grade of P.G.T. on the basis of seniority. The Committee found the petitioner to be entitled to be treated as senior being older in age to the respondent No.5. other things having been found to be equal and, accordingly, the name of the petitioner was recommended to the respondent No.2 for his approval for being appointed to the Selection Grade. The Director of Education, who is the competent authority under the provisions of the Act and the Rules to grant such an approval, on the other hand, considered the respondent No.5 to be senior to the petitioner and directed the Managing Committee of the School to forward the papers of the respondent No.5 to him.