Order
1. Delay condoned in filing the special leave petition, the leave having been granted earlier.
2. 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 the Allahabad High Court, which was upheld in appeal by the Division Bench. The appellant's case is that he was appointed to the LT Grade earlier than Respondent 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 said order could not have been interfered with by the High Court in the writ petition, and as such the High Court committed serious error in interfering with the aforesaid order of the Deputy Director. It is also further contended that any finding or observation of the High Court in relation to the legality of the appointment of Respondent 4 to the post of Lecturer as well as to the further post of Principal should not stand in the way of the appellant, if otherwise is entitled to challenge the same.
3. It transpires that while both the appellant and Respondent 4 were continuing as Teachers in the LT Grade, the Managing Committee of the School passed a resolution purported to have been passed on 1-8-1981 promoting Respondent 4 to the post of Lecturer. The aforesaid resolution appears to have been approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 10-4-1991. According to the appellant, the resolution in question was, in fact, an antedated one and was passed only in 1991 purporting to be one under 1-8-1981 and the said resolution could not have been passed in appointing people to the post of Lecturer as there was no vacancy available at that point of time. It is further contended by the appellant that in fact in ancillary proceedings, a writ petition being filed by some of the appointees on the post on the basis of the 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 the so-called appointment of Respondent 4 in the Lecturer Grade could not have been regularised by any finding of the High Court in the present writ petition which had been filed by Respondent 4.
4. The contention of the counsel appearing for Respondent 4, on the other hand, is that the seniority of the appellant in the LT Grade is not being assailed by him but the subsequent promotion of Respondent 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 competent authority or a competent court annuls the said order. According to him the so-called ancillary proceedings for payment of salary had been made, Respondent 4 was not a party, and as such any observation made therein will not be conclusive and binding.
5. The claim of seniority of the employee is always determined in any particular grade or cadre and it is not the law that seniority in one grade or cadre would be dependent on the seniority in another grade or cadre. It is no doubt true that the appellant has been held to be senior to Respondent 4 in LT Grade by virtue of determination made by the Deputy Director of Education by his order dated 18-7-1994. But at the same time the Managing Committee in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Regulation promoted Respondent 4 to the post of Lecturer by the so-called resolution dated 1-8-1981 which appears to have been approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 10-4-1991. The so-called approval made by the District Inspector of Schools has not been annulled by any higher competent authority under the Act or the Regulation nor any court in an appropriate proceedings has annulled the same. Therefore, the rights of Respondent 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 4 in the LT Grade. Needless to mention the contention of the appellant that the resolution of the Managing Committee was antedated cannot be gone into in these proceedings and this can only be gone into either by a higher authority under the Act or Regulation or in any duly constituted proceedings before any appropriate forum. In that view of the matter, notwithstanding the determination of seniority of the appellant over Respondent 4 in the LT Grade by the order of the Deputy Director dated 18-7-1994, the so-called appointment of Respondent 4 to the post of Lecturer as well as to the subsequent post of Principal cannot be in any way affected by any order passed in these proceedings. While we agree that any observation made by the High Court in the impugned judgment will not affect the rights of the present appellant but at the same time the appointment of Respondent 4 to the post of Lecturer as well as to the post of Principal shall remain unaffected unless and until it is annulled by any competent authority in accordance with law. We make it clear by this order of ours, we are not approving the legality of the appointment of Respondent 4 to the post of Lecturer or to the post of Principal.
6. These appeals are disposed of accordingly.