One of the laws which was amended by the said Ordinance was the Act.
After companysidering the history of the services of these two teachers, the District Inspector of Schools came to the companyclusion that the fortuitous appointment or promotion of the 1st respondent on 1.3.1976 companyld number have any effect on the question of seniority bet 1054 ween the appellant and the 1st respondent.
Secondary/5183/15/7/76/2 18 75 Lucknow date.
The above dispute regarding the seniority between the appellant and the 1st respondent was first companysidered by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia.
Promotions have been made under Para 5 of Regulations No.
5 of 1977 was pro 1052 mulgated on April 21, 1977.
Section 16GG, which was introduced into the Act by the Ordinance, was allowed to remain in operation by the Uttar Pradesh Education Laws Amendment Act, 1977.
7.2.76 issued by Director of Education, P., Allahabad Sh.
He further observed that the promotions of the appellant and the 1st respondent had actually been made as per his letter dated November 20, 1976 which read as under Office of the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia Order No.
Sudama L.T. Rs.400 750Lecturer Singh Rs.300 550 Civics Sd Illegible Tulsi Ram Jatar I.O.S.Ballia He further observed that since the appellant and the 1st respondent had been accepted to be promoted in substantive capacity vide letter dated 20.11.1976 issued by the District Inspector of 1055 Schools, i.e., on the same date and since the appellant, whose date of birth was 1.4.1937 was older than Respondent No.
The Ordinance was replaced by the Uttar Pradesh Education Laws Amendment Act, 1977.
9895 of 1985 before the High Court of Allahabad.
PROMOTION Following Assistant Teachers of L.T. Grade are promoted to the Lecturers Grade on the posts mentioned against their names.
Likewise a large number of teachers, who were working in the educational institutions which were governed by the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 hereinafter referred to as the Act had been appointed or promoted on an ad hoc basis and the question of regularisation of their services was engaging the attention of the State Government during the relevant time.
This appeal by special leave is filed by the appellant against the decision of the High Court.
By the Ordinance a new provision, namely, section 16GG was introduced into the Act.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.1986 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.A. No.
1 was promoted as Lecturer in Hindi on ad hoc basis with effect from March 1, 1976 by the Committee of Management and this action of the Committee of Management received the approval of the District Inspector of Schools on October 5, 1976.
Aggrieved by the decision of the District Inspector of Schools, the 1st respondent filed a writ petition in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
7.7.76 made for the appointment of Principals for Govt.
The learned Judge, who heard the writ petition, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the District Inspector of Schools and declared that the 1st respondent was senior to the appellant on the ground that the 1st respondent had been promoted to the post of Lecturer on March 1, 1976 pursuant to certain orders which had been issued under the Act and which companytinued to be in operation until section 16GG brought into force.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The promotions, referred to above, had been made on an ad hoc basis.
2858 60/85 86 dated 13.6.1985.
1, whose date of birth was 1.7.1942, the appellant should be companysidered as senior to the 1st respondent by virtue of the second sentence in clause b of regulation 3 1 of the Regulations made under the Act.
By the said Ordinance a large number of provisions in four of the laws in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh companycerning education were amended.
On November 20, 1976 the District Inspector of Schools again made an order promoting both the appellant and Respondent No.
15993 94/76/76 Date 20.11.76.
3004 of 1987.
K. Jain and Mrs. Shobha Dixit for the Appellant.
1 as Lecturers in Civics and Hindi respectively.
The above decision of the District Inspector of Schools was companyveyed to the parties by his Letter No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. Special leave granted.
The appellant, Sudama Singh, and Respondent No.
9895 of 1985.
D. Agarwal, L.R. Singh and Pradeep Misra for the Respondents.
1, Nath Saran Singh, were both appointed as Assistant Teachers in T. Grade in the Gandhi Inter College, Chilkahar, District Ballia with effect from the same date, i.e., July 8, 1967 and were placed on probation for one year.
Respondent No.
The appeal is heard.
