into grant-in-aid on 01.11.1989. Thereafter, petitioner states that he continued to hold the post and discharge his duties to the best of his ability. Later, the post of Principal in the above mentioned college fell vacant. One Smt. K.V.V.Nirmala Kumari was appointed, but due to some legal proceedings etc., the post again fell vacant. Thereafter, steps were being taken to promote someone from the feeder category as the Principal of the college. The petitioner’s case is that he is entitled to claim the post of Principal and that since both of them were appointed on the same day as the petitioner is older in age, he has a claim over the post. It is his contention that since both the petitioner and respondent No.6 were appointed on the same day, the seniority must be fixed with reference to his date of birth or biological age. Therefore, he claims seniority. Petitioner also claims that he made a number of representations to the respondents, but they did not act on the same. The seniority list, which was prepared in the interregnum period is not correct according to the petitioner. Learned counsel also draws the attention to the memo dated 28.03.2018 by which the services of the petitioner into grant-in-aid were effected from 26.06.1989 notionally. Hence, the sum and substance of the petitioner’s case before this Court is that he has necessary seniority and the service to be considered as the Principal.
