4 to the post of Lecturer by the so called Resolution dated 1 8 1991 which appears to have been approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 10 4 1991.
4 were companytinuing as a Teacher in the LT Grade, the Man aging Committee of the School passed a Resolution purported to have been passed on 1 8 1981 promoting the respondent No.
According to the appellant, the Resolution in question was in fact an ante dated one and was passed only in 1991 purporting to be one under 1 8 1981 and the said Resolution companyld number have been passed in appointing people to the post of Lecturer as there was numbervacancy available at that point of time.
The appellant, who was appointed as a Teacher in the LT Grade of a private aided educational institution, assails the order of the learned single Judge of Allahabad High Court, which was upheld in appeal by the Division Bench.
It is further companytended by the appellant that in fact in an ancillary proceedings a writ petition being filed by some of the appointees on the post of the basis of very same Resolution for payment of salary, the High Court has already given its finding with regard to the absence of vacancy, and as such so called appointment of respondent No.
4 in the Lecturer grade companyld number have been regularised by any finding of the High Court in the present writ petition which had been filed by respondent No.
4 in the promoted post of Lecturer as well as subsequent post of Principal cannot be annulled by virtue of determination of seniority inter se between the appellant and respondent No.
4, and therefore, he was rightly declared to be senior on a representation being made to the Deputy Director of Education by order dated 18 7 1994.
The so called approval made by the Deputy Inspector of Schools has number been annulled by any higher companypetent authority under the Act or the Regulation number any Court in an appropriate proceedings has annulled the same.
The aforesaid Resolution appears to have been approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 10 4 1991.
The said order companyld number have been interfered with by the High Court in the writ petition, and as such High Court companymitted serious error in interfering with the afore said order of the Deputy Director.
Delay companydoned in filing the Special Leave Petition, the leave having been granted earlier.
4 to the post of Lecturer as well as to the further post of Principal should number stand on the way of the appellant, if other wise is entitled to challenge the same.
4 to the post of Lecturer and further promotion to the post of Principal cannot be set at naught in any ancillary proceedings unless and until a companypetent authority or a companypetent Court annuls the said order.
The companytention of the companynsel appearing for respondent No.
4 to the post of Lecturer.
The appellants case is that he was appointed to the LT Grade earlier than the respondent No.
Therefore, the rights of respondent No.
It transpires that while both the appellant and respondent No.
