JASMEL SINGH Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent Rajendra Prasad Saxena filed a suit for declaration that he is senior to Jasmel Singh, defendant No. 3 as Lecturer in Chemistry and is entitled to selection grade in Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Inter College, Baheri, district Bareilly prior to that of defendant No. 3 and the defendants No. 1, 2 and 4 be restrained from giving selection grade to the defendant No. 3 prior to 16.9.1983.

(3.) In short the material allegations in the plaint are that the plaintiff-respondent was appointed on 28.7.1965 as Lecturer in Chemistry in Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Inter College, Baheri, district Bareilly. He proceeded to complete his post-graduate diploma in Chemistry at the cost of the defendant No. 2 and was granted duty leave for the aforesaid course. After completing the diploma course, the plaintiff-respondent was appointed as Lecturer in Chemistry on 1.7.1967. The defendant No. 3 namely the appellant--Jasmel Singh was appointed to teach Intermediate classes in the absence of the plaintiff. At that time he was only M.Sc. (previous) whereas minimum qualification for appointment of Lecturer in Chemistry at that time was M.Sc. or post-graduate diploma. The appellant was appointed as teacher on 8.7.1966 on temporary basis for one session because he did not possess minimum qualification. His appointment was not approved by the District Inspector of Schools hence he could be considered only as demonstrator. Additional section for Chemistry was opened and the District Inspector of Schools granted approval of the defendant No. 3 vide letter dated 16.9.1967. Since the plaintiff was given Lecturer grade since 1.7.1967 hence the appointment of the defendant No. 3 automatically lapsed from that date. The defendant No. 2 illegally allowed the defendant No. 3 to continue between 1.7.1967 to 16.9.1967 and this period cannot be counted towards seniority. Hence the defendant No. 2 namely, the appellant is junior to the plaintiff-respondent. The defendant No. 2 was going to pass a resolution in favour of defendant No. 3 for giving selection grade prior to that of the plaintiff. Objection was filed by the plaintiff. The seniority list was published on 18.8.1979 in which the plaintiff was shown senior to defendant No. 3 and the list has become final. A resolution was passed by the defendant No. 2 in favour of the appellant on 25.11.1982. The plaintiff filed representation which was illegally rejected by the defendant No. 6 as District Inspector of Schools. This order is also said to be illegal and void.