LAWS(ALL)-1997-7-182

KM SUSHILA JOSHI Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On July 28, 1997
KM. SUSHILA JOSHI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims that by reason of her appointment and promotion to the post of Lecturer on 8.7.1974 along with one Smt. Savitri Kulve, the petitioner having been placed above the said Smt. Savitri Kulve is senior than the said respondent No. 5. The petitioner was also showed senior to the respondent No. 5 in Annexures-2 and 3, which according to the petitioner are the seniority list. Subsequently, the post of principal became vacant. The school authority was directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Principal for being the seniormost teacher but the same was disputed by the respondent No. 5. Ultimately, by an order dated 29.6.1988 the seniority was determined, which is Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Subsequently, a further representation was made by the petitioner which was rejected by an order dated 20.6.1994, which is Annexure-11 to the writ petition. These are the orders which are being challenged by the present writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, disputes the same. The fact remains that the petitioner was appointed on 18.8.1965 in J.T.C. grade and her date of birth was 11.10.1948. Whereas the respondent No. 5 having born on 15.1.1947 was appointed on 4.9.1967 in the C.T. grade. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of L. T. grade on 1.7.1973 whereas the respondent No. 5 was promoted to the post of L.T. grade on 18.4.1968. Thereafter, the respondent No. 5 was promoted to the post of lecturer on 8.7.1974 whereas the petitioner was appointed as lecturer on 8.7.1974.

(3.) So far as these facts are concerned, these are not in dispute. On the basis of the decision in the case of Jokhu Singh v. District Inspector of Schools. Jaunpur and others, 1986 UPIBEC 134 and that of the Sudama Singh v. Nath Saran Singh and others, 1988 UPLBEC 31, the counsel for the petitioner contends that the seniority of the petitioner should be fixed above the respondent No. 5 as claimed by her viz., that she being older in age and both having been appointed on the same date on the post of lecturer, the seniority should have been fixed in her favour as was held in the case of Sudama Singh (supra).