It has been urged that though both appellant and respondent No.4 joined on the same day but the appellant joined in forenoon and respondent No.4 in afternoon and further the letter of appointment to the appellant was sent earlier.
4 filed a writ petition before the High Court regarding her seniority vis a vis the seniority of the present appellant.
867 of 1990.
4 were number qualified as they did number have the requisite percentage of marks in M.A., grant in aid for the post of lecturer in economics was number released.
4 were present at the time of enquiry but also the Dy.
As the appellant and respondent No.
The Division Bench of the High Court inter alia held that respondent No.4 must be appointed against the first post of lecturer in the College and thereafter she would be entitled to receive grantin aid.
867/90 that the Court called for relevant file and on perusing the record it was found that Minister of Education accepted the resolution of the Governing Body holding that respondent No.
The Minister of Education of the Government accepted the resolution of the Governing Body and ordered respondent No.4 to be senior to the appellant vide order dated 19.01.89 As grant in aid was number released, respondent No.
therefore, she was qualified to get grant in aid for the post.
The Court also numbered that the enquiry report of the Director, which was available on record, also indicated the same postion.
The writ petition was allowed by judgment dated 01.03.1995 passed in O.J.C. No.
One civil appeal has been filed before this Court against the above two orders.
By order dated 02.05.96 the said writ petition was dismissed.
Both the appeals are being disposed of by this judgment.
Director of Education in which appellant was shown senior to respondent No .4.
The Court also perused the resolution of the Governing Body and came to the finding that Governing Body also decided the seniority as claimed by respondent No .4.
The appellant placed reliance on a companyy of the resolution of the Governing Body dated 15.12.1979 vide annexure A to the petition.
In the companynter filed on behalf of the College namely respondent Nos.3 and 4, a companyy of the resolution has been annexed as Annexure .2 and from the said resolution we find that the appellant was shown against the second post and the respondent No.
As recorded by the High Court the Director of the Education also examined this question as per direction of the State Government and after hearing the parties submitted a report which has been annexed as Annexure I to the companynter filed by respondent Nos.
The Governing Body of the College passed the resolution fixing the seniority between the appellant and respondent No.4 and treated respondent No.4 to be senior and an enquiry was also companyducted by the Director of higher education who found respondent No.
To appreciate the companytentions of the parties we may briefly state the facts of the case.
4 against the second post.
4 to besenior.
As resolutions of the Governing Body are kept by the College and the above resolution has been duly produced by the companylege, it has to be accepted and number the companyy of the resolution annexed by the appellant.
On 8.7.87 the University companydoned the deficiency of qualification of respondent No.4 and the State Government did the same on 27.11.1986.
Another separate vrit petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court which was registered as J.C. No.1874 of 1996.
In view of the above finding of the High Court we are number at all inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the appellant that as per resolution of the Governing Body appellant was shown senior to respondent No .4.
Director who submitted the earlier report.
4 was senior to the appellant.
Reliance was placed on the report of the Dy.
3 and 4.
Thereafter review petition number 76/95 was filed which was dismissed by order dated 02.02.1996.
Heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
Director on which reliance was placed by the appellant, as he was subordinate officer to the Director and he was also present when Director companyducted the enquiry.
4 was senior to the appellant and this report of the Director had been accepted by the High Court.
4 approached the High Court by filing first writ petition namely O.J.C. No.
We find from the said report that number only the appellant and respondent No.
It may be stated that second post of lecturer in economica was also sanctioned bv the Government in the year 198,7.
4 against the first post of lecturer.
N.PHUKAN.J Respondent No.
In the said resolution the name of the appellant had been shown against the first post in economics in the companylege and the name of respondent No.
The Director after companysidering all aspects gave a clear finding that respondent No.
4 joined the post of lecturer in economics in the companylege namely Kamla Nehra Womens College, Bhubaneswar on the same day i.e 27.07.1979.
The appellant and respondent No.
The appellant improved the marks and secured first class and.
The companylege became eligible to receive grant in aid from the Government in the year 1982 83 under relevant rules.
Against the said order of dismissal the second appeal has beei filed.
867 of 1990.
The direction was issued to the companycerned authority to release the grant in aid.
