UP Education Act | List Of Teachers Issued By Principal Not Seniority List; No Acquiescence For Failure To Object: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that a list merely setting out the particulars of teachers working in an institution, issued by the Principal or by any authority other than the Committee of Management, cannot be treated as a seniority list under Regulation 3(1) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It held that where no seniority list has...
The Allahabad High Court has held that a list merely setting out the particulars of teachers working in an institution, issued by the Principal or by any authority other than the Committee of Management, cannot be treated as a seniority list under Regulation 3(1) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
It held that where no seniority list has been published in the manner prescribed, a teacher cannot be said to have acquiesced in or waived his right to question his seniority by failing to file objections.
Regulation 3(1) of Chapter II requires the Committee of Management of every institution to cause a seniority list of teachers to be prepared. Regulation 3(1)(b) provides that seniority in a grade is to be determined on the basis of substantive appointment in that grade. Regulation 3(1)(e) requires every dispute about seniority to be referred to the Committee of Management. Regulation 3(1)(f) provides an appeal against that decision.
The bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held,
“To qualify as a seniority list under Regulation 3(1) contained in Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, it has to be prepared in accordance with the provisions contained in Regulation 3 and any list containing merely the details of teachers working in the institution, issued by the Principal of the institution or any authority other than Committee of Management, cannot be termed as a seniority list.”
The appellant, Jai Ram, was selected by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board and appointed Lecturer (English) on 25th January 1996. He joined Krishak Inter College, Maholi, District Sitapur in August 1996. Respondent no.1, Prafulla Kumar Mishra, had been appointed Lecturer (Biology) in the same institution on ad hoc basis against a short term vacancy on 25th July 1991, and was regularised by order dated 3rd December2001 with effect from 30th December 2000 under Section 33-F of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982.
The appellant raised his grievance on seniority before the District Inspector of Schools, Sitapur and the Joint Director of Education, VIth Region, Lucknow from December 2014 onwards. When his representations yielded nothing, he filed a writ petition which was disposed of directing the Regional Level Committee to decide the matter within two months.
By order dated 25th March 2017, the Joint Director of Education determined the inter se seniority of the three lecturers on the basis of their dates of substantive appointment and held the appellant senior to Prafulla Kumar Mishra.
Prafulla Kumar Mishra challenged that order in a writ petition, which was allowed on grounds that seniority lists issued in 1997, 2005, 2006 and 2012 had consistently shown him above the appellant, that the appellant had never objected to any of them, and that unsettling seniority after nearly eighteen years was impermissible.
Appellant filed an intra court appeal against the order of the Single Judge.
Respondent no.1 raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules. The Court rejected the objection, holding that the order dated 25th March 2017 had not been passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Regulation 3(1)(f), since an appeal lies under that provision only against a decision of the Committee of Management under Regulation 3(1)(e), and no such decision was in issue.
The Court observed that the list dated 2nd December 2005 and the list for 2016-17 issued had both been issued by the Principal, and that a document dated 11th December 2006 was no more than a statement of the particulars of lecturers in the order of their initial appointment, forwarded by the Principal to the District Inspector of Schools and countersigned by him.
It observed that only the list for 2011-12, prepared when the institution was under Single Operation because the Committee of Management was in dispute, could to some extent be said to be referable to Regulation 3(1). It held that even that list was drawn on the basis of initial appointment and therefore did not conform to Regulation 3(1)(b).
Distinguishing the two seniority lists contemplated by the Regulations, the Court held,
“The seniority referred to in Regulation 3 contained in Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 relates to the seniority list prepared for the purpose of service benefits in reference to service conditions, i.e., promotion, etc.; whereas the seniority referred to in Regulation 2 contained in Chapter I of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is for the purpose of selection of ex-officio members on rotational basis for including them in the Committee of Management.”
On the extracts of the institution's annual magazine relied on by respondent no.1 to show that seniority had been published from time to time, the Court observed,
“The publication of the magazine of the institution every year containing details of the teachers do not come within the ambit of a seniority list, as such details are merely in the nature of information regarding the teachers working in the institution since their initial appointments”
The Court also held that a finalised seniority list must be circulated.
“In case the seniority list is not circulated, the provisions contained in Regulation 3(1)(f) and (g) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 would be rendered otiose as without any knowledge of the final seniority list, an aggrieved person can neither file objection as contemplated under Regulation 3(1)(e) nor appeal under Regulation 3(1)(f).”
While observing that long settled seniority cannot ordinarily be disturbed, the Court held that the learned Single Judge had reached his conclusion by treating documents that were not seniority lists at all as though they were.
“The objection can only be raised to a duly published seniority list issued in accordance with the statutory provisions. Any list published by an authority not competent to issue a seniority list cannot be termed as a seniority list so as to require any objection thereto as contemplated under Regulation 3.”
The Court further held that no vested right had accrued to respondent no.1, who had neither been promoted nor allowed to officiate on a higher post over the appellant before the appellant raised his objection. It was the appellant who had been given charge of Officiating Principal under the order dated 25th March 2017 and was divested of it only when that order was set aside.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and directed that the appellant be given all consequential benefits as senior to respondent no.1.
Case Title: Jai Ram v. Sri Prafulla Kumar Mishra and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 484
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 484
Counsel for Appellant :- Meenakshi Singh Parihar, Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Ramesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Chandra Bhushan, Devam Shukla, Neel Kamal Mishra, Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Vijay Dixit
Click Here To Read/Download Order