SATYABHAMA Vs. REGIONAL DY DIRECTOR OF EDU. (SECONDARY)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1, 2 and 3. None appears for the respondent no.5.

(2.) The petitioner and respondent no.5 were appointed as lecturer in the respondent institution vide order dated 30.11.1972 and there is no dispute in this regard. It is also not in dispute that in pursuance to the aforesaid order of substantive appointment, the petitioner joined on the post in question on 1.12.1972 whereas respondent no.5 joined earlier, i.e., 30.11.1972. In paragraph 13 of the writ petition a categorical assertion has been made that the aforesaid appointment of the petitioner and respondent no.5 were approved by the competent authority by the same order of the same date passed sometime in December, 1972. This fact has not been categorically and specifically denied by any of the respondents.

(3.) A seniority list of lecturers was issued by the management in the year 1981-82 wherein the petitioner was shown as senior to the respondent no.5. Thereafter, on 11-3-1985, an order was passed by the respondent no.2 declaring the respondent no.5 as senior to the petitioner on the ground that the respondent no.5 has joined her service prior to the petitioner, as already mentioned in the earlier part of this judgement.