HARI SHANKAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) Under the order impugned, the District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad dated 20.11.2007 has held that Respondent No. 4 was senior to the present Petitioner and, therefore, he should be appointed as Officiating Principal of the institution. For the purposes, it has been recorded that both the aforesaid persons were appointed on ad hoc basis on one and same date i.e. 1.10.1981 and that their date of birth is the same. However, in the order of-appointment, name of Respondent No. 4 was shown above the Petitioner, therefore, he has been declared senior. It has been recorded in the impugned order that the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 claim to have been regularized as L.T. Grade teacher under Section 33-A of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (herein after referred to as the Act, 1982). Such finding has been recorded with reference to the fact that they have been granted selections grade and promotional pay scale after counting the required period of service from the date of initial appointment.

(3.) So far as Respondent No. 5 is concerned, it may be recorded that although he has been promoted as L.T. Grade Teacher on substantive basis, he was junior to the aforesaid persons as the services of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 are deemed to be regularized under Section 33-A of the Act, 1982 with effect from an earlier date.