KAMLA SHARMA SMT Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226, Constitution of India has been filed by one Smt. Kamla Sharma seeking to challenge the impugned order dated November 1/2, 1993 passed by respondent No. I/Deputy Director of Education deciding appeal and regarding seniority in favour of respondent No. 3 (Smt. Usha Varshaney, both working as lecturers in a recognized Intermediate Girls Institution called Chiranji Lal Girls Inter College, Aligarh (called the 'College'), which is, admittedly governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (as amended up to date) and regulations framed thereunder. Copy of impugned order has been filed as (Annexure -1 to the writ petition).

(2.) FOR appreciating the controversy raised by the parties, following undisputed dates are being given: -

(3.) THERE is o dispute that Smt. Kamla Sharma (Petitioner) did not challenge the seniority of Smt. Usha Varshaney (respondent No. 3), who was ever -since the appointment of the petitioner in the College till 1989, was treated senior to the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel, however, referred to Para 2 of Annexure RA -3 (filed along with the Rejoinder -Affidavit) to show that the petitioner had made representations dated 29th December, 1973, 22nd April, 1974, 25th April, 1978 and 25th July 1983. It is further alleged that the petitioner had made representations dated 2nd April, 1989 and 1st June, 1989 also before Authorised Controller but no action was taken. The fact that petitioner did not pursue her representations and aforementioned dates clearly show that there is gap of about four years between 1974 and 1978 as well as gap of five years between 1978 and 1983. In case, Committee of Management was not circulating seniority, as required under relevant regulations, the petitioner ought to have raised the issue before higher authorities or proper Court. She approached this Court for a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to treat the petitioner senior to respondent No. 3 by allowing long time of more than a decade to run and she contended by filing representations with no decision on them. Long since and passive approach of her disentitle her to reopen long settled old issues.