Petitioner sought quashing of an order on teacher seniority after a prior interim order left notice issuance unnecessary. The Court, upon learning that the impugned order was modified by the department before the hearing, held the petition infructuous and dismissed it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19197 of 2018
Petitioner :- Dr. Vandana Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nipun Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avneesh Tripathi
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Nipun Singh, for the petitioner and Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.
On 12.9.2018 this Court had passed the following order:
"Heard Shri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Nipun Singh for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Shri Avneesh Tripathi for the respondent nos.3 and 4. At this stage, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent no.5.
The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 14 March 2018 passed by the Director, Higher Education wherein he has mentioned that the seniority of teachers will be counted from the date of their regularisation. The submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that this virtually tantamounts to ignoring the ad hoc period of service of the petitioner from being counted towards seniority. His further submission is that Section 31(C) of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 only provides the mode and method for regularisation but does not mention anything about determination of seniority and in fact the Act itself is completely silent on the question of seniority. He submits that the manner in which seniority is to be determined is given in paragraph 18.14 of the Statutes of the Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut which mentions that all disputes regarding seniority of teachers (other than the Principal) shall be decided by the Principal of the College. Therefore, the power of determining the seniority of teachers lies exclusively within the domain of the Principal of the College concerned.
We have gone through the Act 1980 and the Statutes of the University and prima facie we fail to understand as to how the Director has expressed any opinion as to the date for counting of the seniority or ignoring the ad hoc period of service.
Learned Standing Counsel prays that the matter may come up on Monday to enable him to obtain instructions or file short counter affidavit in the matter.
As prayed, put up on Monday i.e. 17 September 2018 as fresh."
Sri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, on the instructions received, informs that the impugned order dated 14.3.2018 has been modified on 11.4.2018 itself and it has been directed that seniority of the teachers shall be determined strictly in terms of the provisions of Statute 18.14 of the First Statues of Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. The order dated 11.4.2018 has been placed by the learned Standing Counsel, before the Court and the same is taken on record along with instructions.
In this view of the matter, this writ petition has become infructuous and it is accordingly dismissed as such.
Order Date :- 17.9.2018 Vandana
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition concerning the quashing of an order regarding teacher seniority computation is maintainable when the impugned order has been modified prior to the hearing.
Dr. Vandana
State Of U.P.
B. Amit Sthalekar
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
