BASHISHTH PANDEY Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS BALLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions, Writ Petition No. 11718 of 1984 (Bashishth Pandey v. District Inspector of Schools) (for short the first petition) and Writ Petition No. 5938 of 1987 (Bashishth Pandey v. District Inspector of Schools), (for short the second petition) involve similar questions of law and fact. Consequently it is convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.

(2.) BY the first petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for a writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 19-5-84 (Annexure 8 to the first petition) holding respondent no. 3 to be senior teacher in L. T. Grade in the institution known as L. D. Intermediate College, Ballia whereas by the second petition a prayer has been made for a writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 19-5-84 (Annexure 2 to second petition) and the order dated 26-8-86 (Annexure 7 to second writ petition).

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents on the other hand, urged that the petitioner was not senior to respondent no. 3 as the petitioner was appointed on 23-7-65 and respondent no. 3 was appointed on 10-7-65. Respondent no. 3 was, however, confirmed on 12-7-65 whereas the petitioner was confirmed on 23-7-65 and these dates have been taken to be final even by the parties and G.P.F. and selection grade etc. were sanctioned to petitioner and respondent no. 3 on the basis of these dates. It was further urged that earlier the petitioner has filed a writ petition (being Writ Petition No. 3829-87) which was withdrawn by the petitioner as not pressed. The present petition has been filed on the same cause of action, whereas the order of Division Bench of this Court dismissing earlier writ petition as not pressed has become final and the subsequent writ petition was not maintainable on the analogy of provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 (3) and (4) CPC that the petitioner did not file any appeal when earlier seniority was determined between the petitioner and respondent no. 3. The appeal must have been filed within 15 days under Regulation 3 (8) (f) of Chapter II of Regulations framed under the Act. But he did not file any appeal and now he cannot challenge the question of seniority. Nevertheless the petitioner has made several representations, the seniority has finally been determined by the District Inspector of Schools considering all the facts and circumstances of the case by the impugned order dated 19-5-84. Reliance was placed on Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1987 SC 88.