BANKESHWAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner was appointed as a permanent Lecturer in Psychology in the college of Respondent no.5 on substantive vacancy on 23.9.1985. In pursuance of the said appointment letter, the petitioner joined his service as Lecturer on 19.10.1985. He was confirmed in service on 19.10.1986 and thereafter on completion of ten years of service, on 19.10.1995, he was granted selected grade. Respondent no.6 Chhedi Singh was appointed as L.T.Grade teacher, which was approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 4.9.1974 and pursuant thereto he joined his services in the college of Respondent no.5 as L.T.Grade teacher on 6.9.1974. By an order dated 15.4.1985, approval to the appointment of Respondent no.6 as adhoc Lecturer in Economics was granted, which was only for a period till 20.5.19865. The financial approval granted was also only till the aforesaid date. The name of the Respondent no.6 for promotion on the post of Lecturer was thereafter sent for approval to the Respondent no.2 U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board. Such approval was granted to the Respondent no.6 on 5.12.1985. Neither the respondent-institution nor the District inspector of Schools ever published the seniority list of Lecturers of the college but when, on the retirement of the Principal of the college of Respondent no.5, the Respondent no.6 was given officiating charge of Principal, the petitioner agitated his claim of being senior to the Respondent no.6 and thus be given charge of the officiating Principal. His representation to the District Inspector of Schools was rejected on 7.7.2001. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Regional Joint Director of Education, Respondent no.3, which has also been dismissed by order dated 31.1.2003. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) I have heard Sri S.C.Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. Although a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contesting Respondent no.6 but no one has appeared on behalf of the said Respondent no.6 even in the revised list. In such circumstances this case has been taken up for final hearing even in the absence of the learned counsel for the Respondent no.6.

(3.) The specific stand of the petitioner before the respondent authorities for declaring him to be senior to the Respondent no.6 was that his appointment as a Lecturer on a substantive vacancy was made on 19.10.1985, whereas Respondent no.6 Chhedi Singh was promoted as Lecturer only on 5.12.1985. His earlier adhoc appointment/promotion as adhoc Lecturer, which was made on 15.4.1985, was only for a fixed period upto 20.5.1985, and after that there was no financial approved accorded for the continuation of the Respondent no.6 as Lecturer. The promotion order dated 5.12.1985, whereby the promotion of Respondent no.6 was approved by the Board, made it clear that the said promotion would be only from the date the Respondent no.6 assumes charge and joins as Lecturer. Such objection of the petitioner has been brushed aside by the respondents by merely stating that the Respondent no.6 had continued to work as Lecturer from 15.4.1985 and as such he would be considered senior to the petitioner.