High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 14.02.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent and also resolution dated 04.11.2006 with consequential direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner to continue on the post of lecturer in Economics in the 4th respondent college.

3. The petitioner as well as 5th respondent was appointed on 09.09.1992 as assistant teachers in LT Grade and the said appointment was approved by the competent authority on 16.09.1992. Consequently, they joined on 17.09.1992. The services of the petitioner as well as 5th respondent were regularized vide order dated 13.01.2004. It is admitted that the petitioner and 5th respondent were appointed on the same date as also their services were regularized by the competent authority on the same day, based on Chapter II - Regulation 3 of the Regulations under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations 1921"), the competent authority has considered the case of the 5th respondent for promotion to the post of lecturer as he is older than the petitioner.

4. Contention of the petitioner is that while preparing seniority list of the teachers of the Institution, the petitioner's name was shown at Serial No.20 and the 5th respondent's name was placed at Serial No.22. Hence, the petitioner is senior to the 5th respondent. Accordingly, he is entitled to be considered for promotion of the post of lecturer in Economics. Therefore, the petitioner has requested to set aside the promotional order dated 14.02.2007 and consider the case of the petitioner for the said post.

5. Countering to the said contention, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the list which was relied by the petitioner is not proper seniority list. It is only a list of teachers working in the Institution but the Regulation applicable with regard to preparation of seniority of the teachers is Chapter II - Regulation 3 of the Act which reads as under: "3. (1) The Committee of Management of every institution shall cause a seniority list of teachers to be prepared in accordance with the following provisions- (a) The seniority list shall be prepared separately for each grade of teachers whether permanent or temporary, on any substantive post; (b) Seniority of teachers in a grade shall be determined on the basis of their substantive appointment in that grade. If two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age; [(bb) Where two or more teachers working in a grade are promoted to the next higher grade on the same date, their seniority inter se shall be determined on the basis of the length of their service to be reckoned from the date of their substantive appointment in the grade from which they are promoted: Provided that if such length of service is equal, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age.) (c) A teacher in a higher grade shall be deemed to be senior to a teacher in the lower grade irrespective of the length of service; (d) If a teacher who is placed under suspension is reinstated on his original post his original seniority in the grade shall not be affected, (e) Every dispute about the seniority of the teacher shall be referred to the Committee of Management which shall decide the same giving reasons for the decision; उपखणड (ङ) कक अधधन पबनध समममत कक [(f) मवमनशचय सक वयथथत ककई अधययपक ऐसय मदन कक भधतर समबननधत मवमनशचय ऐसक अधययपक कक ससमचत मकयक जयनक कक ककतधय उप मशकय मनदकशक कक अपधल कर सकतय हह. और अपधल पर समबननधत पकक कक ससनवयई कय अवसर दकनक कक उपरयनत उप मशकय मनदकशक अपनय मनररय कयरर सनमहत दकगय, जक अननतम हकगय और पबनध समममत दयरय कयययरननवत मकयय जययकगय।"] मदनयनक सक 15 यमद एक गकड मम कययररत दक यय अथधक अधययपक मकसध एक हध मतथथ पर पदकनमत मकए थजसमम वक कययररत थक परनतस तक पदकनमत कक दशय मम आयस कक आधयर पर जयकषतय मनधयरररत कक [(g) जयएए तक उनकक जयकषतय कय आधयर उस गकड कय सकवयकयल हकगय, यमद सकवयकयल बरयबर हह. जययकगध।] (2) The seniority list shall be revised every year and the provisions of Clause (1) shall mutatis mutandis apply to such revision."

6. As the Regulation is very specific that seniority of the teachers shall be determined based on the substantive appointment that if two or more teachers appointed on the same date, the age should be taken for consideration. In the instant case, the petitioner as well as 5th respondent has been appointed on 09.09.1992 and their services were approved by the competent authority on 16.09.1992. The petitioner as well as 5th respondent joined on 17.09.1992 and their services were regularized by the competent authority on 13.01.2004. In the said circumstances, seniority has to be counted as per Chapter II - Regulation 3 of the Regulations 1921. If that has to be taken into consideration, the 5th respondent is older than the petitioner, hence he is senior to the petitioner. Accordingly, the competent authority has considered the case of the 5th respondent and effected the promotion vide order dated 14.02.2007. As the promotional order is in accordance with the Chapter II - Regulation 3 of the Regulations 1921, hence the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records as the petitioner and the 5th respondent were appointed on the same date, their services were also regularized on the same date, in the circumstances, as per Chapter II - Regulation 3 of the Regulations 1921, the age has to be taken into consideration for preparing seniority list amongst the teachers who were appointed on the same date. Admittedly, the 5th respondent is older than the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order dated 14.02.2007 is treated to have been passed in accordance with Regulation. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

9. However, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent has also brought to the notice of the Court that the 5th respondent has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. If there is any vacancy available in the Institution, it is needless to say that based on seniority, the petitioner's case may be considered by the concerned respondents. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 (Donadi Ramesh, J.) RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 14.02.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent and also resolution dated 04.11.2006 with consequential direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner to continue on the post of lecturer in Economics in the 4th respondent college.

3. The petitioner as well as 5th respondent was appointed on 09.09.1992 as assistant teachers in LT Grade and the said appointment was approved by the competent authority on 16.09.1992. Consequently, they joined on 17.09.1992. The services of the petitioner as well as 5th respondent were regularized vide order dated 13.01.2004. It is admitted that the petitioner and 5th respondent were appointed on the same date as also their services were regularized by the competent authority on the same day, based on Chapter II - Regulation 3 of the Regulations under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations 1921"), the competent authority has considered the case of the 5th respondent for promotion to the post of lecturer as he is older than the petitioner.

4. Contention of the petitioner is that while preparing seniority list of the teachers of the Institution, the petitioner's name was shown at Serial No.20 and the 5th respondent's name was placed at Serial No.22. Hence, the petitioner is senior to the 5th respondent. Accordingly, he is entitled to be considered for promotion of the post of lecturer in Economics. Therefore, the petitioner has requested to set aside the promotional order dated 14.02.2007 and consider the case of the petitioner for the said post.

5. Countering to the said contention, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the list which was relied by the petitioner is not proper seniority list. It is only a list of teachers working in the Institution but the Regulation applicable with regard to preparation of seniority of the teachers is Chapter II - Regulation 3 of the Act which reads as under: "3. (1) The Committee of Management of every institution shall cause a seniority list of teachers to be prepared in accordance with the following provisions- (a) The seniority list shall be prepared separately for each grade of teachers whether permanent or temporary, on any substantive post; (b) Seniority of teachers in a grade shall be determined on the basis of their substantive appointment in that grade. If two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age; [(bb) Where two or more teachers working in a grade are promoted to the next higher grade on the same date, their seniority inter se shall be determined on the basis of the length of their service to be reckoned from the date of their substantive appointment in the grade from which they are promoted: Provided that if such length of service is equal, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age.) (c) A teacher in a higher grade shall be deemed to be senior to a teacher in the lower grade irrespective of the length of service; (d) If a teacher who is placed under suspension is reinstated on his original post his original seniority in the grade shall not be affected, (e) Every dispute about the seniority of the teacher shall be referred to the Committee of Management which shall decide the same giving reasons for the decision; उपखणड (ङ) कक अधधन पबनध समममत कक [(f) मवमनशचय सक वयथथत ककई अधययपक ऐसय मदन कक भधतर समबननधत मवमनशचय ऐसक अधययपक कक ससमचत मकयक जयनक कक ककतधय उप मशकय मनदकशक कक अपधल कर सकतय हह. और अपधल पर समबननधत पकक कक ससनवयई कय अवसर दकनक कक उपरयनत उप मशकय मनदकशक अपनय मनररय कयरर सनमहत दकगय, जक अननतम हकगय और पबनध समममत दयरय कयययरननवत मकयय जययकगय।"] मदनयनक सक 15 यमद एक गकड मम कययररत दक यय अथधक अधययपक मकसध एक हध मतथथ पर पदकनमत मकए थजसमम वक कययररत थक परनतस तक पदकनमत कक दशय मम आयस कक आधयर पर जयकषतय मनधयरररत कक [(g) जयएए तक उनकक जयकषतय कय आधयर उस गकड कय सकवयकयल हकगय, यमद सकवयकयल बरयबर हह. जययकगध।] (2) The seniority list shall be revised every year and the provisions of Clause (1) shall mutatis mutandis apply to such revision."

6. As the Regulation is very specific that seniority of the teachers shall be determined based on the substantive appointment that if two or more teachers appointed on the same date, the age should be taken for consideration. In the instant case, the petitioner as well as 5th respondent has been appointed on 09.09.1992 and their services were approved by the competent authority on 16.09.1992. The petitioner as well as 5th respondent joined on 17.09.1992 and their services were regularized by the competent authority on 13.01.2004. In the said circumstances, seniority has to be counted as per Chapter II - Regulation 3 of the Regulations 1921. If that has to be taken into consideration, the 5th respondent is older than the petitioner, hence he is senior to the petitioner. Accordingly, the competent authority has considered the case of the 5th respondent and effected the promotion vide order dated 14.02.2007. As the promotional order is in accordance with the Chapter II - Regulation 3 of the Regulations 1921, hence the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records as the petitioner and the 5th respondent were appointed on the same date, their services were also regularized on the same date, in the circumstances, as per Chapter II - Regulation 3 of the Regulations 1921, the age has to be taken into consideration for preparing seniority list amongst the teachers who were appointed on the same date. Admittedly, the 5th respondent is older than the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order dated 14.02.2007 is treated to have been passed in accordance with Regulation. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

9. However, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent has also brought to the notice of the Court that the 5th respondent has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. If there is any vacancy available in the Institution, it is needless to say that based on seniority, the petitioner's case may be considered by the concerned respondents. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 (Donadi Ramesh, J.) RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad