(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying inter alia for a writ of mandamus for setting aside the selection grade list approved by respondent No.2 dated 3rd December, 1976, and for quashing the order of respondent No.2 dated 21st August, 1978 and for restoring the seniority of the petitioner at S.No.2, i.e. next to the Head Mistress, and thus senior to respondent No.4, Ms.Nisha Rani.
(2.) The limited question that arises for adjudication in the present case is as to whether the petitioner is senior to respondent No.4 or not, both working as teachers in respondent No.3 at the time of institution of the writ petition. It may be relevant to note that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the petitioner retired from service on 13th September, 2003 and respondent No.4 expired on 19th September, 2005, leaving behind her legal heirs, who were impleaded in her place vide order dated 3rd May, 2006.
(3.) Brief facts relevant to decide the present petition are as follows. The petitioner was a teacher in the Arya Vedic Pathshala, respondent No.3 herein, (hereinafter referred to as ?the School?). The petitioner claimed that she was appointed as a teacher in the School on 30th December 1964 while respondent No. 4, was appointed as a teacher in the said School on 31st December, 1964. In the first instance, the School was recognized by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ?the MCD?), respondent No.1 herein, on 1st May 1966 without grant-in-aid. But after one year, on 7th July, 1967, it was sanctioned grant-in-aid and ever since the School had been receiving grant-in-aid from the MCD. Since the School was sanctioned grant-in-aid by the MCD from 7th July, 1967, all the teachers, who had been appointed earlier to that date, were also considered by respondent No.1 as having been appointed from that date. In the letter dated 13th March, 1970 issued by the MCD, while approving the appointment dates in respect of the petitioner, respondent No.4 and six others as 7th July, 1967, the name of the petitioner was shown at S.No.2, whereas that of respondent No.4 at S.No.3.