MANNI SINGH CHATURVEDI Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is accepted to the Petitioner that the seniority list of teachers dated 28 August, 1991 (Annexure-4A to the writ petition) was available to him since that date. Under Chapter-II Clause 3, sub Clause (1), of the regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the Committee of Management is obliged to cause a seniority list of teachers to be prepared as prescribed in the regulation. Under Sub-clause (f) of Clause-3, if any teacher is aggrieved from the decision of the Committee of Management, he may prefer an appeal to the Inspector within 13 days of the communication of the said decision to such teacher.

(2.) Notwithstanding that a seniority placing may not have been conveyed formally to the Petitioner, now that he is aware of it, he can object to it under Sub-clause (f), aforesaid. The only change which has taken place in the regulations, in reference to the context, is that in place of the word Inspector the regulation stand amended to include the word Regional Deputy Director with effect from an amendment incorporated in the regulations by a Government Order dated 28 July, 1992. Thus, the Petitioner may prefer his appeal to the Regional Deputy Director.

(3.) Moving a writ petition after almost two years to change a seniority list of August, 1991. in the circumstances, is misconceived. The petition is, for the reasons given above, dismissed in limine.