# Sant Raj v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 420 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-07-12 - **Bench:** Arun Tandon, Mrs. Sunita Agarwal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sant-raj-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44080 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote C.S.C., Sandeep Kumar Rai Headnote: Intermediate Education - Officiating Principal - Inter-se Seniority between Promotee Lecturer and Direct Recruit - Dispute as to date of substantive promotion - Competent Authority to decide - Where dispute arises between two teachers regarding inter-se seniority, affecting appointment on the post of Officiating Principal under Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, the matter is to be determined at the first instance by the competent authority under the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act. The Committee of Management having referred the dispute to the District Inspector of Schools, and the matter involving determination of seniority, the appropriate authority to decide the controversy is the 7 All. Sant Raj Vs State of U.P. & Ors. 421 Regional Joint Director of Education under Regulation 3, Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act. The Court held that: The issue whether regular promotion of a teacher relates back to the date of ad-hoc promotion requires adjudication by the competent statutory authority. Determination of inter-se seniority directly affects the right of appointment as officiating Principal. In the interest of smooth administration of the institution and welfare of students, the dispute must be resolved expeditiously. Accordingly, parties were directed to approach the Regional Joint Director of Education within two weeks. The authority was directed to decide the issue of seniority by a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks thereafter, after summoning the original records and without being influenced by observations of the learned Single Judge. Status quo with regard to the post of Officiating Principal to be maintained for six weeks or until decision of the Regional Joint Director of Education. Both the writ petition and the special appeal were disposed of with directions. Case Law Discussed: Santosh Kumar Dubey & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2010 (1) ESC 341 (All) Narendra Singh Solanki v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2010 (1) ESC 388 (All) Sudama Singh v. Nath Saran Singh Conclusion: The Division Bench clarified that disputes relating to inter-se seniority affecting officiating appointment under Section 18 of the Act must be adjudicated by the competent statutory authority under the Regulations. The High Court, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, refrained from deciding the seniority dispute on merits and instead ensured expeditious statutory adjudication, balancing institutional interest with legal propriety. ## Text 420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES issue no.2 regarding the easmentary right of way of the plaintiff over the Gali in question as well as with regard to Gali in question being 'Public Lane' are liable to be set-aside. 28. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The findings on issue no.2 regarding plaintiff's easmentary right of way over the Gali in question and its being 'Public Lane' are setaside. However, the rest of the judgment and decree are found to be correct and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or setting it aside any other findings or the impugned judgment and decree for which appeal has no merits and is liable to be dismissed with costs. The judgment and decree as well as the operative portion are confirmed, except the findings on issue no.2 mentioned above, with regard to right of way over the Gali and its being Public Lane. In all other respects the appeal is dismissed with costs. The plaint map shall form part of decree of this appeal. 29. Let the record be sent to court below, at the earliest, after preparation of decree. ---------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J. THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J. Special Appeal No.- 439 Of 2016 Sant Raj ...Appellant Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Shivendu Ojha, Radha Kant Ojha (Senior Advocate R.K. Ojha assisted by Ashish Kumar) Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sandeep Kumar Rai Headnote: Intermediate Education - Officiating Principal - Inter-se Seniority between Promotee Lecturer and Direct Recruit - Dispute as to date of substantive promotion - Competent Authority to decide - Where dispute arises between two teachers regarding inter-se seniority, affecting appointment on the post of Officiating Principal under Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, the matter is to be determined at the first instance by the competent authority under the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act. The Committee of Management having referred the dispute to the District Inspector of Schools, and the matter involving determination of seniority, the appropriate authority to decide the controversy is the 7 All. Sant Raj Vs State of U.P. & Ors. 421 Regional Joint Director of Education under Regulation 3, Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act. The Court held that: The issue whether regular promotion of a teacher relates back to the date of ad-hoc promotion requires adjudication by the competent statutory authority. Determination of inter-se seniority directly affects the right of appointment as officiating Principal. In the interest of smooth administration of the institution and welfare of students, the dispute must be resolved expeditiously. Accordingly, parties were directed to approach the Regional Joint Director of Education within two weeks. The authority was directed to decide the issue of seniority by a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks thereafter, after summoning the original records and without being influenced by observations of the learned Single Judge. Status quo with regard to the post of Officiating Principal to be maintained for six weeks or until decision of the Regional Joint Director of Education. Both the writ petition and the special appeal were disposed of with directions. Case Law Discussed: Santosh Kumar Dubey & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2010 (1) ESC 341 (All) Narendra Singh Solanki v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2010 (1) ESC 388 (All) Sudama Singh v. Nath Saran Singh Conclusion: The Division Bench clarified that disputes relating to inter-se seniority affecting officiating appointment under Section 18 of the Act must be adjudicated by the competent statutory authority under the Regulations. The High Court, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, refrained from deciding the seniority dispute on merits and instead ensured expeditious statutory adjudication, balancing institutional interest with legal propriety. (Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J. & Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.) 1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ashish Kumar, for the petitioner-appellant and Sri J.B. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This special appeal is directed against an order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.5.2016 wherein the learned Single Judge has refused to grant an interim order for the reason recorded therein. Parties before us agreed that instead of looking into the merits of the order of refusal to grant interim protection this Court may summon the records of the writ petition itself and decide the appeal as well as the writ petition. Accordingly the records of the writ petition have been summoned and examined by us. The relevant facts in brief of the matter are as follows:- 3. Janta Inter College, Madapar, Kusumi Bazar, Gorakhpur (herein after refereed as institution) is a recognized and aided Intermediate College. The provision of the Intermediate 422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Education Act and Regulations framed thereunder as also of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred as Act) Rules and Regulation framed thereunder are fully applicable to the teachers of the said institution. The post of Principal in the institution fell vacant due to requirement of Sri Lal Bachan Gupta. Pending regular selection on the said post appointment is required to be made in accordance with Section 18 of the Act. Section 18 of the Act contemplates that the Senior most teacher who possess the prescribed qualification and is otherwise suitable may be appointed on the post of officiating Principal. 4. According to the petitioner Sri Sant Raj, he was appointed on 21.4.1976 as L.T. grade teacher in the institution. Two posts of lecturers had been created in the institution, one of which was required to be filled by promotion. It is the case of the petitioner that he possess all the essential qualifications for the post of lecturer of Economics and being the senior most teacher, he was entitled for regular promotion against the said vacancy which fell under the promotion quota. Since regular promotion is to take effect only on the recommendation of the Regional Level Committee, the Committee of Management decided to grant ad-hoc promotion to the petitioner on 19.5.1998. The ad-hoc promotion of the petitioner was approved by the District Inspector of Schools. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been drawing salary as admissible to the post of lecturer since 19.5.1998. 5. According to the petitioner his regular promotion was later approved by Regional Level Committee vide order dated 25.10.2011 as per the resolution of its meeting held on 22.10.2011. According to Sri R.K. Ojha learned counsel for the appellant the regular promotion of the petitioner would relate back to the date on which he was offered ad-hoc appointment for all practical purposes including the issue of determination of inter-se seniority between the lecturers of the same institution. In support of this proposition, he has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey and others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2010 (1) ESC 341 (All) and Narendra Singh Solanki Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2010 (1) ESC 388 (All). Sri R.K. Ojha learned counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sudama Singh Versus Nath Saran Singh reported in 1988 (1) SCC 57. 6. According to the petitioner Sri Sant Raj, if his seniority is counted from the date of his initial appointment on the post of lecturer he would be senior to respondent no.5 who has been directly appointed as lecturer only on 9.1.2009 on the recommendation of the U.P. Secondary Education Selection Board. We may record that there is no dispute with regard to the date of substantive appointment of respondent no.5. 7. According to the petitioner Sant Raj, the Committee of Management of the institution had published the seniority list in the year 2016-2017 wherein he was shown senior to respondent no.5. It is also stated that in the staff statement as well as in the attendance register of the institution, name of Sri Sant Raj, the petitioner was always placed above respondent no.5. It is, therefore, contended that by no stretch of imagination, respondent no.5 can have any claim in preference over the petitioner for appointment on the post of officiating Principal. 7 All. Sant Raj Vs State of U.P. & Ors. 423 8. So far as the respondent no.5 is concerned, it is his case that the date of substantive appointment of Sant Raj would be the date on which the Regional Level Committee had decided to accord approval to his promotion, i.e. in the year 2011. According to respondent no.5 if the seniority of Sant Raj is determined from the said date he would not be entitled to be appointed as officiating Principal being Junior to respondent no. 5. 9. We find that there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.5 with regard to their inter-se seniority, ultimately reflecting upon the right of appointment as officiating principal. The Committee of Management of the institution vide resolution dated 1.5.2016 found it fit and proper to refer the matter to the District Inspector of Schools. 10. The District Inspector of Schools under the order impugned in the writ petition dated 10.5.2016 has observed that the seniority list of the year 2016-17 appended with the resolution of the Committee of Management has not been signed by the respondent no.5. Further having regard to the orders of regular appointment of the petitioner Sri Sant Raj made under Section 14(6) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Rules 1998 he is Junior to respondent no. 5, namely Bhagwat. He has, therefore, decided that the signatures of Sri Bhagwat, respondent no. 5 be attested as officiating Principal of the institution and the charge may be given to him accordingly. 11. Against this order the writ petition No. 26616 of 2016 was filed by Sant Raj. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Santosh Kumar Dubey and Narendra Singh Solanki (supra) the contended that the order of the District Inspector of Schools is a result of complete nonconsideration of the relevant issues that is the date of substantive promotion of the petitioner would relate back to his initial date of ad-hoc appointment. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the records of the appeal as well as the writ petition. Learned counsel for the parties would agree that in case of dispute relating to inter-se seniority of two teachers of the institution, the Committee of management/Authorized Controller is the competent authority to take a decision at the first instance. Ref: Regulation 3 (1)(e) of Chapter-II of the Regulation framed under the Intermediate Education Act. Any of the party aggrieved by the said decision, can approach the Regional Joint Director of Education Regulation 3(b) of Chapter-II of the resolutions framed under the Intermediate Education Act. 13. In the facts of the case normally we would have insisted upon the Committee of management to determine the dispute of seniority between petitioner and respondent no. 5 but we find that the Committee has already taken a decision to refer the dispute pertaining to the seniority and consequential appointment on the post of officiating Principal to the District Inspector of Schools. 14. It is agreed between the parties that the person who is found to be senior most amongst the petitioner-respondent no.5 would become entitled to be appointed as officiating Principal in view of Section 18 of the Act. 424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 15. In our considered opinion, the appointment on the post of principal is essential for administration and smooth functioning of the educational institution. Looking to the interest of the students of the Institution, we feel that the controversy must be resolved at the earliest. 16. We, therefore, require both the parties to represent their claim pertaining to the seniority before the Regional Joint Director of Education within two weeks alongwith the certified copy of this order. The Regional Joint Director of Education is further directed to take an appropriate decision in the matter of inter-se seniority of petitioner Sant Raj and respondent no.5, preferably within a period of four weeks, thereafter, without being influenced by any of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the order under challenge in Special Appeal. The Regional Joint Director of Education shall summon the original record from the committee of management of the institution as may be required and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order keeping in mind the law applicable. 17. For a period of six weeks from today, status quo with regard to the post of officiating Principal shall be maintained which shall thereafter abide by the order to be passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education. 18. With the aforesaid observations/directions both the writ petition and the special appeal are disposed off. ---------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HARSH KUMAR, J. Second Appeal No.- 442 Of 1997 Union Of India ...Appellant Versus Ram Narayan Prasad ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Tarun Varma. Counsel for the Respondent: K.C. Sinha, A.K. Rai, A.P. Tiwari, R.C. Tripathi, S.K. Dwivedi, S.N. Singh, S.S. Tripathi, Shashi Kant Rai, T.M. Khan Civil Law-Second Appeal - Railway Protection Force - Unauthorised absence from duty - Departmental enquiry - Removal from service - Leave without pay - 'No work no pay' - Condoning the misconduct - Double jeopardy - Order XLI Rule 22 C.P.C. - Cross objections - Reasonable opportunity of defence - Principles of natural justice - Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 - Penalty - Manifest error of law -