JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J.
1. These are two connected writ petitions. The relevant facts for the purposes of deciding these writ petitions are that Shrimati S. K. Chaudhari was appointed as C.T. Grade teacher in Vidyawati Darbari Intermediate College, Lukerganj, Allahabad (hereinafter described as the "College") in the year 1964- and she continued to work in that capacity in the College till her promotion to the post of Lecturer on 8.7.1973. It may be noted that she had passed her L.T. Examination in the year, 1970.
2. Dr. Asha Saxena was appointed in the College on 22.7.1969 as L.T. Grade teacher and she continued to work on that post till her promotion as a Lecturer on 8.7.1973. Ku. Radha Raizada was appointed L.T. Grade teacher in the year 19/1 and was promoted to the post of Lecturer on 8.7.1973.
3. Dr. Asha Saxena filed an objection against the seniority list which had been prepared in the year 1986-87 before the Committee of Management as in the seniority list Smt. S.K. Chaudhari was shown senior to her. Her representation was rejected on 11.7.1988 by the Management. Against this decision of the Management Dr Asha Saxena filed appeal before the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools IV Region, Allahabad. The Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools by an order dated 28.6.1989 held that promotion of all the three teachers as lecturers was illegal as none of them was eligible for being promoted at that time and accordingly without deciding the appeal, referred the matter to the Director or Education for cancelling the promotion of all the three lecturers under Section 16-E(10) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. That matter is still pending before the Director of Education and no decision has been taken by him so far.
4. On 30.6.1989 the regular Principal of the College was to retire and the Regional Inspectress of Girls School vide its order dated 28.6.1989 directed the Management of the College to appoint Shrimati S. K. Chaudhari as acting Principal. She accordingly took over charge as acting Principal on 30th June, 1989. This decision was challenged by Dr. Asha Saxena by means of Writ Petition No. 12164 of 1989 and this Court granted interim order in her favour on 5.7.1989. In view of the interim stay order granted by this Court the Management of the College passed an order on 6.7.1989 directing Shrimati S.K. Chaudhari to handover charge of the office of the Acting Principal to Dr. Asha Saxena. Against this order of the Management Shrimati S.K. Chaudhari filed Writ Petition No. 12388 of 1989 before this Court and it is at the admission stage that the aforesaid two writ petitions have been referred to Full Bench in view of the following order passed by the Division Bench:
"Dispute about seniority has been raised in these petitions. Dr. Asha Saxena, Km. Radha Raizada and Smt. Shanti Kunwar Chaudhari were promoted in Lecturer's grade in 1974. On that date the seniority would be determined under Clause (b) of Rule 3 of Chapter III on age. In 1976 Clause (bb) was added and it provided that in promotions seniority shall be decided on seniority in the grade from which the person is promoted. It was urged on behalf of Dr. Saxena that she having been appointed in L.T. Grade earlier than the other two, her seniority should be determined under this clause. Reliance has also been placed on last sub-clause of this paragraph which provides that seniority will have to be revised every year. Reliance has also been placed on 1983 UPLBEC 297. The decision is in favour of the petitioner but we have our doubts whether a rule or regulation can be applied retrospectively. In absence of any decision in the Regulations or in the Rule itself, it has normally to be taken as prospectively. Since in Mahendra Pal Singh's case, 1983 L.I.C. NOC 46-1983 UPLBEC 299, it was applied to the promotions which have been made before coming into force of Clause (bb), we are of the pinion that it needs reconsiderations."
The then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice referred the two writ petitions to a Full Bench at the admission stage. These two writ petitions were disposed of by the Full Bench by a common order dated April 13, 1990 (reported in 1990 L.I.C. 1300). Writ Petition No. 12164 of 1989 Dr. Asha Saxena v. Shrimati S.K, Chaudhari was allowed and the order of the Committee of Management dated 11.7.1988 and orders dated 5.11.1988 and 28.6.1989 passed by Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools were quashed. The Writ Petition No. 12388 of 1989 Shrimati S.K. Chaudhri v. Managing Committee and Ors., was dismissed.
5. Two review petitions were thereafter filed - one by Shrimati S.K. Chaudhari and the other by Km. Radha Raizada in the two writ petitions which had been decided by the Full Bench. The aforesaid two review applications have been disposed of by us today by a separate common reasoned order and the judgment of the Full Bench has been set aside by us on the ground that opportunity had not been provided to Km. Radha Raizada at the time of hearing of the two writ petitions. We have now afforded opportunity to Km. Radha Raizada who has now filed a counter- affidavit on merits to which a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner Dr. Asha Saxena.
6. We have heard the two writ petitions afresh on merits after providing full opportunity to all the parties who are represented by their counsel before us.
7. The first question which arises for consideration before us on the arguments raised by the learned counsel for Shrimati S.K. Chaudhari is as to whether some questions have been referred to this Full Bench or the entire case has been referred for decision. A bare perusal of the order passed by the then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice clearly shows that the two writ petitions as a whole have been referred to this Full Bench for decision and we do not find any specific question which may have been referred to us either by the Division Bench referring the case to the Full Bench or by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice while taking the reference to us. In these circumstances we proceed to decide all the questions which arise for decision in these two writ petitions.
8. The first question which arises for determination in these two writ petitions is about the inter se seniority of the three lecturers i.e. Dr. Asha Saxena, Km. Radha Raizada and Shrimati S.K. Chaudhari. The relevant facts for the purposes of deciding this controversy are that Smt. S.K. Chaudhari, the petitioner in Writ No. 12388 of 1989 was appointed as a C.T. Grade teacher in 1964 in the College and continued to work in that capacity in the College till her promotion to the post of a lecturer on 8th July 1973. However, in the meantime she also passed her L.T. Examination in the year 1970. Dr. Asha Saxena petitioner in the connected Writ Petition No. 12164 of 1989 was appointed in the College on 22.7.1969 as L.T. Grade teacher and continued on that post till her promotion as a Lecturer on 8th July 1973. Kumari Radha Raizada, who was appointed as L.T. Grade teacher in the College in the year 1971 was also promoted to the post of Lecturer on 8th July 1973, In this manner all the three teachers were promoted to the post of Lecturer in the College on the same date i.e. 8th July 1973 and have been working since then as Lecturers.
9. At the very outset it may be mentioned that as Km. Radha Raizada had not got opportunity before the Full Bench, the following facts having very important bearing on the decisions of the questions raised in these two writ petitions were not brought to the notice of the Full Bench. In the counter-affidavit which has been filed by Km. Radha Raizada it has been asserted in paragraph 7(a) that after the appointment of Km. Radha Raizada, Dr. Asha Saxena and Shrimati S.K. Chaudhari as Lecturers in the Institution on 8.7.1973, the Committee of Management had wrongly shown the petitioner Dr. Saxena senior to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as lecturers in the seniority list prepared after 1975. An objection was filed against the said seniority list by Smt. Chaudhari before the Committee of Management of the Institution and the same was allowed after hearing the parties including the petitioner and the list of 1975-76 was published with Smt. S.K. Chaudhari is serial No. 1, Km. Radha Raizada at serial No. 2 and Dr. Asha Saxena at serial No. 3. No appeal against the decision of the Committee of Management was filed by the petitioner Dr. Asha Saxena and it became final between the parties, The said list was repeated with the same seniority of the parties as Lecturers of the institution year after year. Photostat copies of the common seniority list of the institution of the year 1975-76 and the seniority list of the teachers of the institution gradewise prepared for the years 1975-76, 1979-80, 1984-85, 1986-87 and 1988-89 as were available to Km. Radha Raizada have been fired as Annexures I, II, III, IV and V to the counter-affidavit.
10. A demi-official letter dated December 12, 1975 on the question of seniority list has also been filed before us which clearly shows that the Education Department had intimated all the institutions that clauses (4), (5) and (6) of Chapter I of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act have made a provision that seniority list of the teachers will be maintained in the institution. In the letter it has been emphasised that after the amendment of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, in the year 1975 a provision has been made for giving promotion to the teachers and for this reason the importance of the seniority list has increased considerably. It has been emphasised in the letter that in case in any institution seniority list has either not been prepared or it is disputed, then the same may be prepared within the prescribed time and may also be intimated to the teachers. It may also be mentioned that this D.O. letter of the Government was also not placed before the Full Bench and it has also not been brought to the notice of the Full Bench that in the year 1975 itself a provision had been made by amending Intermediate Education Act for promotion of the teachers on the basis of seniority. In fact, the Government notified the U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1975 by means of notification dated August l8, 1975. The relevant portion of Clauses 2(a), (b) and (c) of the aforesaid order provided as follows:
"2.(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 14 of the aforesaid Act, any substantive or leave vacancy or any vacancy existing or occurring during the current academic session of the Head of Institution or, a teacher of an institution may be filled in by the Committee of Management, on ad hoc basis in the manner provided hereunder till such period, not exceeding six months in any case, as a person duly selected in accordance with Section 14 aforesaid is appointed against such vacancy.
(b) The vacancy of the Head of the Institution shall be filled-
11. At the time of appointment of the three lecturers i.e. on 8.7.1973 the only provisions regarding promotion and the seniority list would be found in Chapter I of the Regulations framed under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Under Section 16-A of the Act a provision has been made for a scheme or administration for every institution whether recognised before or after the commencement of the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1951. It provided that the Scheme of Administration shall amongst other matters provide for the constitution of a Committee of Management vested with the authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution. The Head of the Institution and the two teachers thereof, who shall be selected by rotation according to seniority in the manner to be prescribed by regulations shall be ex-officio members of the Committee of Management with a right to vote. Clause 2 of Chapter I provides that for the purpose of selection by rotation in ordpr of seniority, a common seniority list of all the teachers in substantive service of an institution shall be maintained by the Management in accordance with the rules. Clause 4 of the Chapter I of the Regulation provides that the manager shall prepare and maintain the seniority list showing therein the date from which a teacher is entitled to count his seniority. Under this clause a teacher was given a right to file an appeal to the District Inspector of Schools or to Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools as the case may be, whose decision was to be final. Clause 6 of the Regulations is rather important for the purposes of this writ petition which runs as follows:
"A copy of the list after it has been finalised shall be supplied to each teacher, the Head of the Institution and the Inspector or Regional Inspectress for the reference and record. Any change in the strength or grades to teachers comprising a category shall be duly noted in the list and all concerned promptly intimated of it. Any teacher who feels aggrieved by the change may file objection before the Management Committee within a month of the intimation and that objection shall be dealt with as if it were an objection under Regulation 4."
Moreover, as has been observed above, in the year 1975 itself there had been an amendment in the U.P Intermediate Education Act. A provision was made for promotion of the teachers of the institution on the basis of seniority. The D.O. letter which has been referred to above, and has only been filed now, also requires the institution to prepare a seniority list. With the counter-affidavit now filed by Km. Radha Raizada, Annexures-CA. 1 and CA. 2 have been filed which show that the seniority lists have been prepared for the year 1975-76. The seniority list contained in An-nexure C.A.I is for the purposes of nominating teachers as ex officio members of the Committee of Management for the year 1975-76. The seniority list contained in An-nexure- C.A. "2" is a seniority list which has been prepared in accordance with Clause (6) of Chapter II which gives gradewise seniority. Admittedly this seniority list had been prepared after hearing all the three teachers by the Committee of Management. The decision had admittedly been taken by the Managing Committee on 29.4.1976. The decision of the Committee of Management has been filed by Dr. Asha Saxena herself to her rejoinder affidavit in Writ Petition No. 12164 of 1989 as Annexure-I. It is admitted that after the decision of the Committee of Management on 29.4.1976 a seniority list had been prepared for the year 1975-76 which has been filed as Annexure-CA "2" to the counter affidavit of Km. Radha Raizada. As far as the three lecturers are concerned, this very seniority list had been repeated year after year. Some of the seniority lists for the subsequent years have been filed by Km. Radha Raizada as An-nexures "3" to "6". We are thus of the opinion that seniority lists were prepared under Chapter I which is borne out from the provisions of Chapter I and also from the documents which have now been filed by Km. Radha Raizada. It may again be reiterated that all these materials were not before the earlier Full Bench and it was for this reason that the earlier Full Bench was led to believe that only one list was prepared under the provisions of Chapter
12. The next question which arises for determination is as to whether the provisions of Clause 3(1)(bb) of Chapter II are retrospective in its operation or not. Learned counsel appearing for Dr. Asha Saxena has urged that as prior to the incorporation of Chapter II, there was no rule for fixing seniority for the purposes of promotion of teachers of an institution governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, the provisions of Regulation 3(1)(bb) of Chapter II would apply also to teachers who have been appointed prior to coming into force of this provision.
13. Learned counsel appearing for Shri-mati S.K. Chaudhari and Kumari Radha Raizada have, however, urged that firstly the seniority list which was prepared under Chapter I was to be applicable for the purposes of promotion of teachers of an institution governed by the U.P. Intermediate, Education Act and secondly, on the language of Regulation 3(1)(bb) the operation of the aforesaid clause cannot be said to be retrospective in its operation.
For the purposes of considering the arguments raised by the learned counsel appearing for Dr. Asha Saxena it would be useful to reproduce the provisions of clause 3(1)(a)(b), (bb)(c) and (2) :-
"3(1). The Committee of Management of every institution shall cause a seniority list of teachers to be prepared in accordance with the following provisions:
(a) The seniority list shall be prepared separately for each grade of teachers whether permanent or temporary, on any substantive post;
(b) Seniority of teachers in a grade shall be determined on the basis of their substantive appointment in that grade. If two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age;
(bb) W'here two or more teachers working in a grade are promoted to the next higher grade on the same date, their seniority inter se shall be determined on the basis of the length of their service to be reckoned from the date of their substantive appointment in the grade from which they are promoted:
Provided that if such length of service is equal, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age.
(c) A teacher in a higher grade shall be deemed to be senior to a teacher in the lower grade irrespective of the length of service;
(2) The seniority list shall be revised every year and the provisions of Clause (1) shall mutatis mutandis apply to such revision"
A bare perusal of Clause 3(b) would show that initially when Chapter II was introduced the basis for seniority of teachers in a grade was on the basis of their date of substantive appointment in that grade. If two or more teachers were appointed on the same date seniority was to be determined on the basis of their age. It is thus clear that the provisions of Clause 3(b) was similar to the provision which was there in Chapter I.
14. The next important provision which falls for consideration is Clause 3(bb). The aforesaid provision has been inserted with effect from 1.9.1976. This Clause (bb) has application only to particular cases which relates to two or more teachers working in a grade and having been promoted to the next higher grade on the same date. The aforesaid clause limits itself to determining their seniority inter se and it says that the seniority shall be determined on the basis of the length of their service to be reckoned from the date of their substantive appointment in the grade from which they are promoted. On the language of Clause 3(bb), it cannot be said that it is retrospective in operation. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every Statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. Unless there are words in the Statute sufficient to show the intention of the Legislature to effect existing rights it is deemed to be prospective only nova constitutes futuris formam imponere debt, non practeritis'. A new law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the past. There was prior to the insertion of Clause (bb) a provision in Chapter II itself for determination of seniority on the basis of substantive appointment. We are thus of the opinion that the provisions of Clause 3(1)(bb) of Chapter II are not retrospective in operation and the seniority which had been prepared under Chapter I and which had been repealed under Chapter II insofar as the three lecturers are concerned was not liable to be changed in view of the provisions of Clause 3(l)(bb) under Chapter II. Moreover, there being a provision for fixation of the seniority of the three lecturers at the time of their promotion by no stretch of imagination the provisions of Clause 3(bb) could take away the vested rights of the lecturers. The law is well settled on this point by the various pronouncements of the Supreme Court. Recently the Supreme Court in the case of D.P. Sharmav. Union of India A.I.R. 1989 SC 1071-1989 L.I.C. 1294 has held (Para 4):
"We have perused the judgment of the Division Bench and also considered the submissions of the parties. The view taken by the Division Bench appears to be erroneous. The Rules, no doubt, provide that all persons substantially appointed to a grade shall rank senior to those holding officiating appointments in the grade. But the Rules have no retrospective effect. It could not impair the existing rights of officials who were appointed long prior to the Rules came into force. The office memorandum to which learned single Judge has referred in detail and which we nave extracted above clearly laid down that length of service should be the guiding principle of arranging the inter se seniority of officials. The appellants being governed by those memorandums had the right to have their seniority determined accordingly before the Rules came into force. That being their right, the Rules cannot take it away to their prejudice. The Division Bench was therefore clearly in error in directing that the seniority shall follow their respective confirmation".
"These considerations apply equally to the present case as well. The general rule is if seniority is to be regulated in a particular manner in a given period it shall be given effect to, and shall not be varied to disadvantage retrospectively. The view taken by the Division Bench, which is in substance contrary to this principle is not sound and cannot be supported".
15. For the reasons stated above, in our opinion, firstly the provisions of Clause 3 (1)(bb) of Chapter II are not retrospective in operation and, in our opinion, the view on this question taken in the case of Radhey Shyam Pandey v. Dist. Inspector of Schools 1983 UPLBEC 297 does not lay down the correct law.
16. If that be so, the controversy regarding seniority of the three lecturers was determined by the Managing Committee on 29.4.1976. The aforesaid seniority list had remained in existence since then. The argument raised by the learned counsel for Dr. Asha Saxena that she got a right to file objections only when the seniority list was prepared in the year 1985-86 is not tenable. This argument is also not tenable because it has come on the record that the seniority list gradewise was prepared even earlier to the year 1985 and no objection had been filed. The law is well settled that the Court will not interfere with a seniority list which had remained in existence for a long time and which had become final. In the present case the Management had determined the seniority on 29.4.1976. This decision had been taken after affording opportunity to Dr. Asha Saxena. She did not file any appeal against the decision of the Committee of Management even though an appeal may have been preferred. Objections by Dr. Asha Saxena had been filed after a lapse of nearly 15 years. In the objections, which have been filed an Annexure "3" to the writ petition, of Dr. Asha Saxena, she has not taken a ground that seniority list was not prepared every year. The only objection raised was that she did not know about the insertion of provisions of Section 3(l)(bb) in Chapter II and she filed the objections after coming to know of the aforesaid provisions. The seniority list has been existing since the year 1975-76 and we are not prefared to quash seniority list after a lapse of nearly 15 years. The Supreme Court in the case of Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza v. Union of India A.I.R. 1975 SC 1269 = 1975 LIC 816 (Paras 8 and 9) has held:
"The matter can also be looked at from another angle. The seniority of the petitioner qua respondents 4 to 26 was determined as long ago as 1956 in accordance with 1952 Rules. The said seniority was reiterated in the seniority list issued in 1958. The present writ petition was filed in 1971. The petitioner, in our opinion, cannot be allowed to challenge the seniority list after lapse of so many years. The fact that a seniority list was issued in the year 1971 in pursuance of the decision of this Court in Karnik's case, AIR 1970 SC 2092 (supra), would not cloth the petitioner with a fresh right to challenge the fixation of his seniority qua respondents 4 to 26 as the seniority fist of 1971 merely reflected the seniority of the petitioner qua those respondents as already determined in 1956. Satisfactory service conditions postulate that there should be no sense of uncertainty amongst public servants because of stale claims made after lapse of 14 or 15 years. It is essential that any one who feels aggrieved with an administrative decision affecting one's seniority should act with due diligence and promptitude and not sleep over the matter. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the petitioner before us for the inordinate delay in approaching the Court. It is no doubt true that he made a representation against the seniority list issued in 1956 and 1958 but that representation was rejected in 1961. No cogent, ground has been shown as to why the petitioner became quiescent and took no diligent steps to obtain redress. Although security of service cannot be used as a shield against administrative action for lapses of a public servant, by and large one of the essential requirements of contentment and efficiency in public services is a feeling of seniority. It is difficult no doubt to guarantee such security in all its varied aspects, it should at least be possible to ensure that matters like one's position in the seniority list after having been settled for once should not be liable to be reopened after lapse of many years at the instance of the party who has during the intervening period chosen to keep quiet. Baking of old matters like seniority after a long time is likely to result in administrative complications and difficulties. It would, therefore, appear to be in the interest of smoothness and efficiency of service that such matters should be given a quietus after lapse of some time."
Learned counsel appearing for Dr. Asha Saxena has also urged before us that the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools has found the appointment of the three teachers invalid as on the date of appointment none of them had the requisite qualifications for being promoted to the post of lecturer in the College. It has been urged that the Full Bench on an earlier occasion relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sarup v. State of Haryana AIR 1978 SC 1536 = 1978 L.L.C. 1535 has held that the three teachers should be deemed to have been appointed from the date on which they would acquire qualifications for being promoted to the post of lecturers. At the very outset it may be mentioned that the earlier writ petition of Dr. Asha Saxena had been allowed inasmuch as complete material had not come before the Full Bench regarding the fact that Dr. Asha Saxena had filed objections immediately after her promotion which had been rejected and had become final. It has also not been brought to the notice of the Full bench that seniority list grade-wise was prepared every year after the incorporation of Chapter III in the year 1976. It may also be noted that Dr. Asha Saxena has not challenged the validity of the appointment and had only made a challenge to the seniority list. One fails to understand that after a lapse of nearly 17 years the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools referred the matter to the Director of Education for adjudicating the question as to whether the appointments were valid or not. In our opinion, the exercise of power by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools on the facts and circumstances of the case is wholly arbitrary as that power could not be exercised after lapse of 17 years. The objections filed by Dr. Asha Saxena in the year 1986 which are contained in Annexure "3" to the writ petition are liable to be rejected inasmuch as the ground that she did not know the provision of Clause 3(1)(bb) in Chapter II was of no avail to her. The seniority lists were being prepared year after year after 1975-76 and the objection filed by Dr. Asha Saxena after the lapse of nearly 11 years was not liable to be entertained as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Sousa (1975 L.I.C. 816) (supra). In any view of the matter, the appointments which were existing for the last 17 years could not be set aside after a lapse of such a long period. Even the earlier Full Bench had quashed the order of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools referring the matter under Section 16-E(10) of the Act we are also of the opinion that the aforesaid order is liable to be quashed. It is true that there is power under Section 16-E (10) of the Act to cancel the appointments but the power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. The appointments had been made in the year 1973 and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the exercise of that power after the /apse of 17 year by the Director of Education under Section 16-E(10), on the facts and circumstances of the case can be said to be exercise of a power within a reasonable time. In our opinion, the order of the Regional Inspec-tress of Girls Schools referring the matter to the Director of Education under Section 16-E(10) is thus liable to be quashed.
17. For the reasons stated above the writ petition of Dr. Asha Saxena is dismissed and the writ petition of Smt. S.K. Chaudhari is allowed to the extent indicated above. The stay order granted in the case of Dr. Asha Saxena is vacated. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.
Order accordingly.