HARILAL JATASHANKER PANDYA Vs. RAMNIKLAL J DAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are being asked to settle the question of inter se seniority of teachers in the services of the Municipal School Board of Jamnagar, which was in the erstwhile State of Saurashtra. One batch of teachers like the appellants say that the passing of the qualifying examination should be the criterion for fixing the seniority and the another batch of teachers like respondents Nos. 1 to 27 say that their seniority should be fixed taking note of the continuous officiation in the post. The question of inter se seniority has come to prominence in view of the upgradation of the 20 % of the posts as selection posts. The learned Single Judge, who dealt with the Special Civil Application preferred by respondents 1 to 27 expressed his view in the following terms:

(2.) In this Letters Patent Appeal directed against the decision of the learned Single Judge, the endeavour of Mr. P. K. Jani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. D. D. Vyas, learned Counsel on record for the appellants, is to show that there are prescriptions, come by way of a letter dated 24-2 1954 issued by an officer bearing the designation 'Vidhya Adhikari, Saurashtra State and there guidelines have been set down and those guidelines indicate passing in the qualifying examination as the criterion and not continuous officiation in the post for fixing seniority. It is not as if that the said letter was not adverted to by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge after adverting to this letter, expressed his view that the said officer was not competent to lay down any policy decision on behalf of the Government The contrary position is not demonstrated before us. Otherwise, the learned Single Judge found that none of the parties was in a position to disclose any policy decision or rule or regulation issued by the erstwhile State of Saurashtra for the purpose deciding the seniority of teachers. We do not think that on the materials placed before us, we could express a different view on the letter and elevate this letter to a binding rule, speaking on the subject contrary to the well accepted norm that continuous officiation in the post should be the guiding factor for deciding the question of seniority.

(3.) In this connection, we deem it worthwhile to refer to a few pronouncements of the Apex Court in the land wherein this question has been looked at and the principle has been settled. In N. K. Chauhan and Others v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 251, this is what has been observed: