AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Manoj Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K. Srivastava for respondent No. 5 and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
The challenge is to the order of seniority as determined by the Joint Director of Education vide order dated 28.8.2009.
Sri Misra contends that the impugned order proceeds without considering the impact of Regulation 3 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. He contends that as a matter of fact service in that grade would mean the period for which the petitioner has received salary in the Lecturer grade. The contention in short is that in view of the Government order dated 28.2.1990 read with the Government order dated 25.10.2000, it is established that the petitioner was paid salary in the Lecturer grade and, therefore, his seniority should be counted in that grade only from the date of receipt of salary in the Lecturer grade.
Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent, contends that there is no order of creation of the post simultaneously alongwith the award of grade to the petitioner and, as such, seniority in the Lecturer grade cannot be presumed in favour of the petitioner in the absence of any clear statutory rule.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, learned standing counsel and having perused the relevant regulations, it is evident that the Government order dated 25.10.2000 has clarified this position by including Clause 7 in the said Government order, which is quoted below:
7- izoDrk in ij dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus okys v/;kidksa dh T;s"Brk mDr in ij dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh frfFk ls gh fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sxh A mudh iwoZ lsok,a Lukrd Js.kh ds v/;kid ds :i esa ekuh tk;sxh] rFkk izoDrk in dk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus ds ckn Lukrd Js.kh dh lsovksa dk dksbZ ykHk izoDrk in ds p;u@izksUufr osrueku fn;s tkus gsrq vuqeU;u gksxk A
According to the said clause, there is no room for doubt that the Government order, which can be presumed to be a power exercised u/s 9(4) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, extends the benefit of seniority only as per the Government order and not prior to that.
Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed.