When the appellant was reverted as Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Respondent 4 was appointed to officiate as Headmistress, Junior High School on 1 7 1975.
If this is the factual position, the claim of the appellant to be senior to Respondent 4 has been properly rejected by the High Court.
She companytinued to so officiate till her appointment as Headmistress, Junior High School on 25 4 1978.
On this basis also the appellant cannot be senior to Respondent 4 only because the appellant was companyfirmed prior to Respondent 4.
However, she has number produced a single document in support of her companytention.
She companytinued to officiate as Headmistress of Junior High School from 1 7 1975 till the date of impugned order of 25 4 1978 when she was substantively appointed to the post.
Hence the present appeal is filed by Qamar Jahan.
The appellant was, however, companyfirmed as a Primary School Teacher on 10 12 1963 while Respondent 4 was companyfirmed on 11 2 1965.
The appellant claims to have worked as Headmistress, Primary School from 31 7 1971.
This appeal relates to the promotion granted to Respondent 4 Narain Devi as Headmistress of Junior High School on 25 4 1978.
She companytinued as Headmistress of Primary School uptil 1 7 1975, when she was appointed to officiate as Headmistress of Junior High School.
The appellant was appointed as officiating Headmistress of Junior High School on 31 3 1975.
As far as we can gather from the record, the appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary School on 12 10 1962.
By the same order the appellant was promoted as Assistant Teacher, Junior High School.
Respondent 4 was appointed as Headmistress, Primary School from 21 4 1975.
She companytinued to officiate as Headmistress of Junior High School for a period of three months up to 30 6 1975, after which she seems to have been reverted on 30 6 1975 as Assistant Teacher in Primary School.
By the same order the appellant Qamar Jahan was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Junior High School.
Respondent 4 was appointed as Assistant Teacher of Primary School prior to the appellant on 11 9 1961.
Assuming for the sake of argument that one must companysider the seniority of the two in the cadre of Assistant Teachers in Primary School, the date of initial appointment of Respondent 4 is prior to the date of initial appointment of the appellant.
The High Court, however, set aside the order of the Tribunal and has upheld the order of 25 4 1978.
By companytrast, Respondent 4 was appointed as Headmistress of Primary School on 25 4 1975.
Seniority usually depends on the length of companytinuous service.
According to the appellant she companytinued to officiate as Headmistress even after 30 6 1975 up to the date of the impugned order of 24 5 1978.
According to the appellant she was senior to Respondent 4 and hence she was entitled to be appointed Headmistress of Junior High School under the order of 25 4 1978.
This is how the facts have been found by the High Court.
The appellant challenged this order before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal.
The Tribunal allowed the application of the appellant holding that she should have been appointed as Headmistress, Junior High School, instead of Respondent 4.
