PANCHAMI SINGH Vs. JUNIOR DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue in this writ petition is the determination of inter se seniority between the petitioner Panchami Singh and the third respondent Indrajeet Gaur. They are both teachers in the L.T. grade in Jawahar Lal Nehru Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jayatpur, which is a recognised Intermediate College. The Committee of Management decided the dispute by holding the third respondent Indrajeet Prasad Gaur as senior. The petitioner took the matter to the Joint Director of Education in appeal. By the order dated 31.5.2001 the Joint Director of Education has decided the matter in favour of the third respondent. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come in this writ petition. The petitioner and the third respondent were both appointed as L.T. grade teachers by promotion on 7.9.1993. In such: a case where two persons are promoted on the same date in a particular grade, seniority would be determined by Regulation 3 (bb) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act and not by Regulation 3 (b). Both the Regulations 3 (b) and 3 (bb) are quoted below :

(2.) As per the aforesaid provision of Regulation 3 (bb), seniority is to be determined on the basis of the length of service to be reckoned from the date of substantive appointment in the grade from which the promotion was made. The petitioner and the third respondent were both teachers in the C.T. grade from which they were promoted, as such, it is necessary to fall back on the determination of the date of substantive appointment of the petitioner and the third respondent. The Joint Director of Education has relied upon the service book. The date of appointment of the third respondent in the C.T. grade entered in his service book is 9.11.1972 but his appointment was shown as untrained. The date of his substantive appointment is entered as 1.7.1975. On the other hand, the date of substantive appointment of the petitioner in the service book is entered as 1.8.1977. On this basis, the Joint Director of Education held the third respondent to be senior to the petitioner.

(3.) Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that approval of the petitioner in the C.T. grade under the three language scheme was 30.3.1979, whereas the date of approval of the third respondent was 29.6.1982 and as such, the petitioner is senior to the third respondent. Reliance is placed in this regard upon Annexure-2 to the writ petition, which is a copy of the letter of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur, in which it is stated that the teachers whose names were given in the list which, includes the name of the third respondent were regularised by the department in the prescribed pay scales. The question is whether the letter dated 29.6.1982 confers validity upon the petitioner's appointment as a letter of approval or it is merely a recognition of the appointment for the purpose of payment of salary as the institution had come under the grants-in-aid. It is submitted by Sri V. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the third respondent that no approval was required at the time of the petitioner's appointment in the C.T. grade, which was made in the year 1972 or at any point of time before the U. P. Recognised Basic School (Recruitment of Condition of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, were enforced with effect from 13.2.1978. For the first time, the requirement of approval to the appointment of a teacher of a Junior High School became necessary under these Rules. Sri Arvind Srivastava, however, submitted that even before these Rules, there was a requirement of approval under paragraph 143 of the Education Code. A Full Bench of this Court in Magan Ram Yadav v. Deputy Director of Education, 1980 UPLBEC 6, has held that the paragraph 143 of the Education Code is merely in the nature of executive instruction and does not have the status of a statutory rule. A Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Narain Katiyar v. District Basic Education, Kanpur, 1980 UPLBEC 257, relied upon the decision in Mangan Ram Yadav and has also held that paragraph 143 applies to teachers of High School and Intermediate classes and not to Junior Higher Secondary or Basic Schools.