Prafulla C. Pant, J.
1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the seniority list dated 26.12.2001 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) of the Lecturers of Panna Lal Bhalla Inter College, Haridwar. A mandamus has further been sought to declare the petitioner Officiating Principal of said college.
2. Heard earned Counsel for the parties.
3. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was a Lecturer in English since 15.1.1981 with Murli Manohar Inter College Ishpurteel, district Muzaffarnagar. He was transferred from said college to Panna Lal Bhalla Municipal Inter College, Haridwar on 21.7.1997 and since then continuously working as Lecturer of English in said college. Respondent No. 4 Surendra Singh Beniwal was promoted as Lecturer in English w.e.f. 6.11.1989, which is clear from the seniority list dated 26.12.2000 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). However, respondent No. 3, i.e., Manager of the College permitted respondent No. 4 to officiate as Principal of the college. The petitioner's case is that in the seniority list, respondent No. 1, has wrongly been shown as Serial Number 1, as he became Lecturer in English to teach the intermediate classes much after the petitioner was working in said grade. According to the petitioner, he is already getting promotional pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 while respondent No. 4 is still in the selection grade, which is a grade lower than the promotional pay scale. Challenging the wrong placement mentioned in the impugned seniority list, the petitioner has sought reliefs, as mentioned above.
4. Counter-affidavits are filed separately on behalf of respondent No. 2, respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4. In the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 2, it is stated that Panna Lal Bhalla Inter College, Haridwar (for brevity hereinafter referred as P.L.B. Inter College) is recognized aided institution to teach classes from 6th to 12th. It is admitted in said counter-affidavit that the petitioner who was a Lecturer in Murli Manohar Inter College Ishpurteel, district Muzaffarnagar since 15.1.1981, was subsequently transferred on his request to P.L.B. Inter College, Haridwar, vide order dated 9.7.1997. In the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 2, it is mentioned that service conditions of the transferred teachers in such cases are governed by Rule 61 of the Regulations framed under Chapter III of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was to be placed at the bottom of the Lecturer grade in the college, where he was transferred. As to the seniority of Surendra Singh (respondent No. 4) in the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 2, it is stated that he was initially only Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade w.e.f. 20.7.1970 and was promoted as Lecturer in Hindi w.e.f. 06.11.1989. Defending the impugned seniority list, it has been stated that the seniority of the petitioner is required to be reckoned from 21.7.1997 when he actually joined his duties in P.L.B. Inter College on his transfer.
5. In the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 3, i.e. Manager of P.L.B. College, it has been stated that the petitioner was Lecturer'in English w.e.f. 15.01.1981 in Murli Manohar Inter College Ishpurteel, district Muzaffarnagar and was transferred to P.L.B. Inter College, Haridwar. Defending the impugned seniority list, it has been stated on behalf of respondent No. 3 that the petitioner was to be placed at the bottom of the seniority of the teachers in the grade he was working. Relying on Rule 61 of Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, it is stated that respondent No. 4 is senior to the petitioner and is officiating as Principal, in accordance with law. It is further stated in para 10 of the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 3 that on 1.7.2001, respondent No. 4 has been promoted on ad hoc basis and is not officiating on the post of Principal. However, it is stated that the ad hoc appointment of respondent No. 4 is only till the Principal is selected through Commission.
6. Respondent No. 4, has filed his separate counter-affidavit but the averments are same as mentioned in counter-affidavit of respondent No. 3.
7. Before further discussions, it is pertinent to mention here the rules applicable to the present case. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 61 of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, reads as under:
(2) A teacher on being transferred in pursuance of this Chapter--
(a) Shall become the teacher of the institution to which he has been transferred and his pay and service conditions shall remain the same unless legally varied.
(b) Shall be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of the teachers serving on the same cadre and category in the institution.
(c) In compliance to the provisions of Sub-clause (b) the service rendered prior to the transfer in the institution from which the teacher has been transferred shall be treated as service rendered to the institution to which he has been transferred.
The above mentioned sub-rule, makes it clear that where the pay protection and other service benefits of the transferred teacher are protected in the Government aided institutions, he is made to forego his seniority viz-a-viz other teachers in the cadre and grade he has joined the institution. In the Hindi version of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 61, shows that word 'shreni' has been used for the word 'category'. It further indicates that the transferred teachers are to be placed at the bottom of the cadre and category in the transferred institution. Earned Counsel for respondent No. 4, argued that the 'shreni' refers to the reserved category and not to the pay scale. This Court is unable to accept the arguments advanced on behalf of respondent No. 4. It does not appear to be the intention of the legislature to place a person of selection grade below those who are working in the ordinary pay scale. A grade (shreni) in the Sub-rule (2), actually refers to the pay scale in the cadre, which has been joined by the transferred teachers. That being so, the petitioner should have been placed at the bottom of those teachers in the Lecturer Grade, who were in the pay scale of the selection grade, which he was drawing at the time of joining in the institution to which he is transferred. Para 9 of the writ petition, shows that the petitioner was in the higher pay scale as against the pay scale drawn by respondent No. 4. Said averment in para-9 of the writ petition, has been denied in the counter-affidavit of respondents but in so many words, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have admitted that the petitioner was drawing higher pay scale in view of the pay protection and not because of the protection of his seniority. This Court is of the view that a harmonious construction is required to be made of all the three Clauses of (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 61. After reading whole of the provision, applicable to the transferred teachers, this Court is of the view that the transferred teacher loses his seniority on being transferred under the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, only in the grade of the cadre/pay scale to which, he was transferred. In other words, Clause (b) of said Sub-rule (2) does not deprive the transferred teacher of his seniority over the persons in a different grade of the cadre, for example a selection grade teacher would not lose his seniority as against the teachers drawing ordinary grade in the same cadre.
8. For the reasons, as discussed above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed to the extent that the placement in the seniority list of the petitioner at Serial Number 6 as against respondent No. 4, who has been shown at Serial Number 1 is erroneous in law and the same is quashed to that extent. The petitioner shall be placed at Serial Number 1 of impugned seniority list dated 26.12.2001. However, as to the relief of the mandamus to declare the petitioner as officiating Principal, it is directed that the matter shall be examined by the concerned authorities in the light of the observation made in the judgment, as above. No order as to costs.