JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J.
1. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has challenged the seniority list dated 5.11.1996 (Annexure 10), the order of the Committee of Management of the institution dated 8.7.1997 (Annexure 11) rejecting the objections of the petitioner against the aforesaid seniority list, the order of the Dy. Director of Education, Gorakhpur dated 9.10.1997 (Annexure 14) and the appellate order dated 20.2.1999 (Annexure 16) passed by the Joint Director of Education, Basti Region Basti.
2. The brief facts are that Goswasmi Tulsidas Uchhatar Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Dandwaghat, Siddharth Nagar is an aided and a recognized institution, which is imparting education upto High School. The institution received recognition on 18.9.19973 for imparting education in the subjects of Hindi, English, Sanskrit, Mathematics, Economics and Geography. The petitioner was working as teacher of the institution w.e.f. 2.8,1971. However, on 1.8.1974 the petitioner Mukund Singh and respondent No. 4 Balram Upadhaya were directly and substantively appointed as Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade and both of them joined on 1.8.1974. The appointments of both of them were duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Basti vide common order dated 18th February 1977. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 on the date of their appointment possessed qualification of M.A. B.Ed. However, in B.A. their subjects were different. Petitioner had Hindi, Ancient History and Sociology in B.A. whereas the respondent No. 4 did his B.A. with Hindi, Sanskrit and Geography. In Intermediate, the petitioner had not taken Sanskrit as one of the subjects whereas respondent No. 4 had Sanskrit in Intermediate and B.A. both.
3. The petitioner's date of birth as recorded is 15.4.1945 and that of the respondent No. 4 is 1.1.1951.
4. According to the petitioner as the respondent No. 4 and the petitioner were both appointed on the same date at the institution as Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade and were also approved by a common order dated 8.2.1977, therefore, on the basis of their age, the petitioner for all practical purposes was always shown senior to respondent No. 4 in the seniority list of the staff of the institution. In the seniority list of the staff of the institution finalized for the year 1986-87 he was shown senior to the respondent No. 4 at SI. No. 2 just next to the Principal, Viddyadhar Diwedi and above respondent No. 4 who was shown at SI. No. 3. The said seniority list was duly signed by the respondent No. 4 without any reservation and protest and as such was admitted to him. Therefore, there is no doubt that the petitioner is senior to respondent No. 4.
5. The permanent principal of the institution Sri Viddyadhar Diwedi retired on 30.6.1996. At the time of his retirement, the DIOS on the basis of the admitted seniority of the petitioner vide letter dated 30.6.1997 directed the retiring principal to handover charge to the senior most teacher of the institution and accordingly the petitioner was given the charge as officiating principal and his signatures were duly attested by the DIOS on 4.7.1997.
6. However, before the aforesaid permanent principal retired, the Committee of Management of the institution in collusion with the respondent No. 4 in order to sabotage the petitioner's appointment as officiating principal maneuvered and circulated a seniority list dated 5.11.1996 incorrectly showing the respondent No. 4 as senior to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner protested against the same and filed his objections on 10.12.1996. However, the objections were rejected by the Committee of Management vide order dated 8.7.1997. Thus, under these compelling circumstances the petitioner was left with no alternative but to challenge the seniority list dated 5.11.1996 and the order rejecting his objections in appeal under Chapter II Regulation 3(1)(f) framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 before the Joint Director Education, Basti Region Basti.
7. During the pendency of appeal, the respondent No. 4 filed writ petition No. 2301 of 1997 challenging the order of the DIOS attesting the signatures of the petitioner as officiating principle. The said writ petition was disposed of without going into the merits of the case vide order dated 29.7.1997 as the petitioner's appeal regarding seniority was pending before the Joint Director Education, Basti. The High Court disposed of the petition with the direction to decide the appeal within six months. The respondent No. 4 not being satisfied by the order of the High Court filed Special Appeal No, 567 of 1997 but the same was disposed of on 11.8.1997 upholding the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.7.1997 with the only modification that the time limit to decide the appeal pending before the Joint Director Education, Basti was reduced from six months to four months.
8. Despite the orders of the High Court directing for deciding the petitioner's appeal either within six months or four months, the appeal was not decided and instead the Joint Director of Education, Basti passed an interim order on 9.10.1997 permitting the respondent No. 4 to work as officiating principal at the institution and his signatures as such were also attested by the DIOS. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid action of the Joint Director of Education, Basti in passing the interim order and in not deciding the appeal and the action of the DIOS in attesting the signatures of the respondent No. 4 as officiating principal by filing Writ Petition No. 35810 of 1997. However, the said writ petition was dismissed in limineon the ground that it was directed against an interim order and the petitioner's appeal regarding seniority continues to be pending. Thereafter, the appeal of the petitioner was finally decided and dismissed by the Joint Director Education, Basti vide order dated 20.2.1999. The respondent No. 4 has been held to be senior to the petitioner basically on a technical ground that the appointment of the petitioners as Hindi Teacher at the institution was not possible until and unless a teacher in Sanskrit was available at the institution and since no such teacher was available the petitioner was not qualified for appointment and, therefore, his appointment cannot be treated against a substantive post.
9. In the above background the petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming seniority over the respondent No. 4 and his entitlement to officiate as principal of the institution.
10. Necessary counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the learned Counsels appearing for the parties have agreed for the final disposal of the writ petition on the basis of the pleadings on record. Therefore, the petition has been heard finally and is being decided at the admission stage itself.
11. The order-sheet of the petition reveals that the Court vide order dated 30.9.2002 had recorded that the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the DIOS is not in consonance with the documents annexed with the writ petition which are not being disputed or said to be incorrect. Therefore, a direction was issued to the DIOS to produce the original file of managers' return with respect to the, seniority dispute in question starting from the year 1974 to 1997 positively. It was made clear that no excuse shall be entertained in this regard, so as to adjourn the hearing of the petition and allow further time to produce the original documents. Despite the above order the standing counsel has not produced and placed the original documents as directed.
12. The Intermediate Education Act, 1921 in Section 16-E provides for the procedure for the selection of the teachers and heads of the institution and specifically states that no person shall be appointed as head o\' the institution or teacher in an institution unless he possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed by the regulations and the minimum qualifications so prescribed can be granted exemption by the Board under certain circumstances.
13. The relevant portion of Section 16-E of the Act is quoted below:
16-E. Procedure for selection of teachers and head so finstitutions.(1)...
(2)...
(3) No person shall be appointed as Head of Institution or teacher in an institution unless he possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Regulations :
Provided that a person who does not possess such qualification may also be appointed if he has been granted exemption by the Bard having regard to his education, experience and other attainments.
14. Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Regulations under the Act provides that the minimum qualifications for appointment as head of the institution and teachers in recognized institution shall be as provided in Appendix A.
15. The aforesaid Regulation 1 of Chapter II is quoted below:
1. The minimum qualifications for appointment as Head of Institution and Teachers in any recognized Institution, whether by direct recruitment or otherwise, shall be as given in Appendix A.
16. Appendix A in reference to Regulation 1 of Chapter II lays down the minimum qualifications for appointment of head master and teachers in private recognized Higher Secondary Schools. At the relevant time the minimum qualifications for appointment of a Hindi teacher in High Schools for classes IX and X as per Appendix A to the Regulations were trained B.A. with Hindi and Intermediate with Sanskrit. In the note appended to the qualifications so prescribed it was further provided that in an institution where a qualified Sanskrit teacher is available to teach the Sanskrit portion of Hindi course it may not be necessary for the Hindi teacher to have taken Sanskrit as one of the subjects in intermediate. The relevant portion of Appendix-A prescribing minimum qualifications for Hindi teachers for High Schools at the relevant time is quoted below:
For High School (Class IX and X) 1. Trained B.A. with Hindi and Intermediate with Sanskrit.
Or
2. Trained Alankar with Hindi and Sanskrit Literature of the Gurukul Kangri, Hardwar.
Or
3. Trained Shiromani with Hindi as one of the subject of the Gurukul, Vrindaban.
Or
4. Trained Shastri or Bharati with Hindi and English as optional subjects of the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi or erstwhile Government Sanskrit College, Varanasi, according to the new syllabus or trained Shastri with Hindi and Sanskrit of the Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi.
Or
5. Trained Sahitya Ratna in Hindi Literature of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad (two years course) and the full Intermediate,with Sanskrit as one of the subjects Or
6. Trained Prabhakar (Hans, in Hindi) of the Punjab Univer-Sity with Sanskrit as one of the subjects N. B. - In institutions where a qualified Sanskrit teacher is available to teach the Sanskrit portion of the Hindi course, it may not be necessary for the Hind teacher to have taken Sanskrit as one of the subjects for the Intermediate Examination:
17. Thus. in view of above provisions the minimum qualifications for Hindi teacher in High Schools at the relevant time was trained B.A. with Hindi and Intermediate with Sanskrit and Sanskrit in Intermediate was optional where in an institution a qualified Sanskrit teacher was available to teach the Sanskrit portion of the Hindi course.
18. Regulation 3 of Chapter II of the Regulations provides for the preparation of the seniority list of the teachers working at the institution and the manner in which the seniority of the teachers is required to be determined. The relevant portion of the Regulation 3 of Chapter II of the Act is quoted below:
3. (1) The Committee of Management of every institution shall cause a seniority list of teacher 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) Where 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.
(d) If a teacher who is placed under suspension is reinstated on his original post, his original seniority in the grade shall not be affected;
(e) Every dispute about the seniority of the teacher shall be referred to the committee of Management which shall decide the same giving reasons for the decision;
[(f) mi[k.M ¼M-½ ds v/khu izcU/k lfefr ds fofuf'p; ls O;fFkr dksbZ v/;kid ,slk fofu'p; ,sls v/;kid dks lwfpr fd;s tkus ds fnukad ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj lEcfU/kr {ks=h; mi&f'k{kk funs'kd dks vihy dj ldrk gS] vkSj vihy ij lEcfU/kr i{kksa dks lquokbZ dk volj nsus ds mijkUr mi f'k{kk funs'kd viuk fu.kZ; dkj.k lfgr nsxk] tks vfUre gksxk vkSj izcU/k lfefr }kjk dk;kZfUor fd;k tk;sxkA] [(g) ;fn ,d xzsM esa dk;Zjr nks ;k vf/kd v/;kid fdlh ,d gh frfFk ij inksUufr fd, tk,W] rks mudh T;s"Brk dk vk/kkj ml xzsM dk lsokdky gksxk] ftlesa os dk;Zjr Fks] ijUrq ;fn lsokdky cjkcj gS] rks inksUufr dh n'kk esa vk;q ds vk/kkj ij T;s"Brk fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sxhA] (2) The seniority list shall be revised every year and the provisions of Clause (1) shall mutatis mutandis apply to such revision.
19. In view of the aforesaid regulations, it is ample clear that the seniority list of the teachers is required to be prepared by the Committee of Management of the institution and the same is revisable every year. The seniority of the teachers is required to be determined on the basis of their substantive appointment in their grade and if two or more teachers are substantively appointed on the same date their seniority shall be determined on the basis of age.
20. The one and the only ground on which the petitioner has been dislodged from his seniority above respondent No. 4 is that the petitioner is not holding the minimum qualifications prescribed for appointment as Assistant Teacher in L.T. grade in Hindi in the institution in as much as he is not having Sanskrit as one of the subjects either in Intermediate or in B.A.
21. I have heard Sri M. D. Singh Shekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. N. Saxena, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R. M. Saggi appearing for respondent No. 2 Committee of Management, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 i.e. Joint Director of Education, Basti and DIOS, Siddharth Nagar.
22. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in view of the note appended to the minimum qualification prescribed for Hindi Teachers in High Schools, Sanskrit was optional in Intermediate for appointment of Hindi teacher in the institution where a duly qualified Sanskrit teacher was otherwise available to teach the Sanskrit portion of the Hindi course and since the respondent No. 4 who was appointed alongwith the petitioner on the same day in the institution was duly qualified to teach the Sanskrit portion of the Hindi course being B.A. with Hindi, Sanskrit and Geography and having Sanskrit as one of the subjects in intermediate also, the petitioner was treated to be having the minimum qualifications required for appointment as Hindi teacher at the institution. Sanskrit in intermediate was treated as optional in view of the simultaneous appointments of the petitioner and respondent No. 4. It was for this reason that the appointment of the petitioner was also duly approved by the DIOS and on the basis of his age he was treated as senior also.
23. On the other hand Sri P. N. Saxena, Senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 contended that the appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to be substantive as he was not possessed of the minimum qualifications on the date of said appointment and there was no order granting any exemption from the minimum qualifications prescribed to the petitioner as required by the proviso to Section 16-E (3) of the Act. Secondly, the note appended to the minimum qualifications as prescribed by Appendix-A making it optional for having Sanskrit as one of the subjects in Intermediate examination for Hindi teacher shall not be applicable or attracted as there was no Sanskrit teacher available at the institution to teach Sanskrit portion of the Hindi course.
24. Learned Standing counsel supporting the stand of respondent No. 2 contended that as the petitioner is not possessed of the minimum qualifications prescribed, his appointment does not have the status of a substantive appointment and as such he is not entitle to any seniority.
25. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submissions made across the Bar by the learned Counsel for the parties, the following three points arises for determination:
(1) Whether the petitioner was qualified for appointment as Assistant Teacher (Hindi) L.T. grade;
(2) Whether the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher L.T. grade made on 1.8.1974 and duly approved by DIOS can be assailed at this stage in proceedings relating to seniority; and (3) Whether the petitioner is senior to respondent No. 4.
26. It would be appropriate to deal with the first point first i.e. whether the petitioner possesses the minimum qualifications for appointment as Assistant Teacher (Hindi) in L.T. grade at the institution.
27. According to Appendix-A the minimum qualifications necessary for appointment of a Hindi teacher in High Schools were as under:
(i) Trained B.A. with Hindi;
(ii) Intermediate with Sanskrit; and
(iii) Sanskrit was optional where a qualified Sanskrit teacher was available to teach the Sanskrit portion of the Hindi course.
28. There is no dispute that the petitioner is M.A., B.Ed, and in B.A. he had Hindi as one of the subjects but since he had not studied Sanskrit in Intermediate, he was not qualified for appointment as Hindi Teacher. However, the disqualification of not possessing Sanskrit as the subject in Intermediate was liable to be ignored where the Sanskrit Teacher was available to teach the Sanskrit portion of the Hindi course.
29. The object behind prescribing Sanskrit in intermediate as one of the minimum qualifications for appointment of Hindi Teacher appears to be that the Hindi Teacher should be competent to teach even Sanskrit, which is part of the Hindi course. The said condition was however optional and was not applicable where a Sanskrit Teacher was available to teach the Sanskrit portion of the Hindi course. The purpose behind making Sanskrit in Intermediate as optional in the above circumstances is clear. The Hindi course in High Schools contains a small portion of Sanskrit to be taught by the Hindi Teacher. The said Sanskrit portion cannot be taught by a Hindi Teacher unless he had Sanskrit as one of the subjects in Intermediate. However, where some other teacher at the institution was available to teach this Sanskrit portion of the Hindi course, the minimum qualifications of having Sanskrit in Intermediate prescribed for a Hindi Teacher was not necessary and was made optional.
30. In the present case the respondent No. 4 was having the qualifications of M.A., B.Ed, with Sanskrit as one of the subjects in B.A. and Intermediate both. Therefore, he was having the necessary qualifications for teaching the Sanskrit portion of the Hindi course. The respondent No. 4 was simultaneously appointed with the petitioner on the same date and, therefore, he was available at the institution to teach the Sanskrit portion of the Hindi course. Thus, the petitioner was not required to have Sanskrit in Intermediate as the necessary minimum qualifications for appointment as a Hindi Teacher in the institution. The condition of having Sanskrit in Intermediate stood relaxed automatically in view of the simultaneous appointment of the respondent No. 4 at the institution.
31. No doubt the respondent No. 4 was not a Sanskrit Teacher but the fact remains that he possessed the necessary minimum qualifications prescribed for teaching the Sanskrit portion of the Hindi course and, therefore, he was very much available in the institution when the petitioner was appointed to teach the Sanskrit portion of the Hindi course. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not possessed of the minimum qualifications prescribed for appointment as a Hindi Teacher at the institution.
32. The statute cannot be interpreted divorced from its object. The Apex Court in the case of Gujrat High Court v. G.K.M. Panchayat AIR 2003 SC 1201, Paragraphs 29 & 35 has observed that a statute must be interpreted having regard to the purport and the object, which it seeks to achieve. No doubt while interpreting the provision of a statute Court is not supposed to re-write the statute itself but is not debarred from "ironing out of creases" The Court should always make an attempt to hold rule and interpret the same in such a manner which would make it workable. Therefore, even if technically a Sanskrit Teacher was not available at the institution but since a Teacher competent to teach the Sanskrit portion of the Hindi course was available, therefore, it was not necessary for the petitioner to have possessed Sanskrit as a subject in Intermediate in seeking his appointment as a Hindi Teacher. It was for this reason that the appointment of the petitioner was also duly approved.
33. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 Sri. P. N. Saxena has placed reliance upon the decision of the High Court in the case of Shitla Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 UPLBEC 461, which has also been upheld by the Apex Court in case of Shitala Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1986 UPLBEC 473, and has contended that in the absence of order of exemption in the qualification as provided by proviso to Section 16-E (3), the petitioner could not have been appointed. The facts of the said case arc quite distinct from the facts and circumstances of the present case and as such in my opinion the said decision is of no help to the respondents. In the present case the petitioner is not seeking any exemption from the minimum qualifications prescribed under the Regulations. The Appendix-A to the Regulations itself provides that Sanskrit in Intermediate would not be a necessary qualification for appointment of a Hindi Teacher provided a teacher is otherwise available at the institution to teach the Sanskrit portion of Hindi course. Therefore, there is no requirement of any express exemption in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The minimum qualification prescribed stood automatically relaxed in the above contingency.
34. Moreover, Assistant Teachers in L.T. grade are not supposed to teach any particular subject for which they have been appointed. They can always be asked and deputed to teach any of the subjects which are being taught at the institution according to their qualifications. It is for this reason the order of approval of the DIOS on record dated 18.2.1977 does not state the subject in which the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 have been appointed.
35. Now comes to the second point as to whether the appointment of the petitioner is open to challenge in proceedings relating to inter se seniority. The petitioner was substantively appointed as Assistant Teacher on 1.8.1974 and is working since then. His appointment was duly approved by the DIOS vide order dated 18.2.1977. The appointment of the petitioner and its approval was never questioned and challenged at any time by any person at least by the respondent No. 4, respondent No. 2 Committee of Management or even the statutory authorities i.e. the DIOS. The said appointment of the petitioner and the approval accorded by the DIOS have not even been revoked, cancelled or modified in any manner till date. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in L.T. grade in the institution w.e.f. 1.8.1977 has become final and conclusive. Therefore, the same cannot be permitted to be questioned or challenged in collateral proceeding while deciding the seniority of the petitioner viz. a viz. the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 so as to deprive the petitioner the seniority on the ground that he was not lawfully appointed.
36. This takes me to the third point about seniority. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 both were appointed as Assistant Teacher in L.T. grade at the institution on 1.8.1974 and had joined the institution on the same date. Their appointments were approved by the DIOS vide order dated 18th February 1977. The order of approval places the name of the petitioner in the list of approved teacher of the institution at SI. No. 1 and that of respondent No. 4 at SI. No. 2 meaning thereby, that the petitioner was treated as senior to the respondent No. 4 on the basis of his age. It may not out of context that the services rendered by the petitioner prior to the above substantive appointment w.e.f. 1.8.1974 are not at all relevant and material for the purpose of determining the seniority or for the purposes of deciding the present writ petition.
37. The seniority list of the teachers of the institution of the year 1986-87 which was duly prepared and circulated clearly places the petitioner above to the respondent No. 4. The petitioner has been placed at SI. No. 2 whereas the respondent No. 4. has been placed at SI. No. 3. This seniority list has been signed by the respondent No. 4 as having seen but without protest. The respondent No. 4 had not challenged the said seniority list of 1986-87 and thus had allowed it to become final and conclusive. In other words the petitioner for all purposes was treated to be senior to the respondent No. 4.
38. Sri P. N. Saxena asserted that the seniority list of 1986-87 has not been validly circulated by the Committee of Management and the signature of the DIOS appended at the bottom of it are not genuine and fraudulent. The above submission is devoid of any force in as much as the DIOS in his counter affidavit has no where disputed the above seniority list and has not even said that the signatures of the DIOS on the said list are in any way forged or fictitious. The DIOS has not disputed the correctness or genuineness of the documents forming part of the petition as is evident from Courts' order dated 30.9.2002 and has not even produced documents to prove that the documents filed with writ petition are not worth reliance. Be as it may be, the fact remains that right from the i.e. from 1.8.1974 till 1996 no dispute of seniority was ever raised by the respondent No. 4 even though the petitioner was being treated as senior after the approved list of the teachers of the institution issued by the DIOS on 18.2.1977 in which the petitioner's name was placed above respondent No. 4.
39. It is settled legal proposition that seniority once determined and is allowed to remain intact for a long time without being challenged cannot be permitted to be changed subsequently in as much as substantive rights on its basis accrues in favour of the parties which cannot be taken away at a much belated stage. In this regard a reference may be had to the full bench decision of this Court in case of Smt S. K. Chaudhari v. Manager, Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College, Lookarganj Allahabad and Ors. 1991 (1) UPLBEC 250. In this case it has been held that the appointments made several years ago cannot be questioned after the lapse of considerable period i.e. 17 years. In the present case also the petitioner was held to be senior to respondent. No. 4 as per the approval order of the DIOS dated 18.2.1977 wherein the petitioner's name was shown at SI. No. 1 and that of respondent No. 4 al Sl. No. 2 and even under the final seniority list of the year 1986-87 the seniority of the petitioner was determined to be above respondent No. 4. The said seniority list having not been questioned till 1996 had attained finality and in view of the above full Bench decision was not liable to any change after 10 years. The above full Bench decision has recently been followed by another decision of this Court in case of Smt. Kamla Sharma v. Dy. Director of Education, Agra 2001 (1) UPLBEC 171.
40. Once the seniority list of the year 1986-87 has become final and conclusive placing the petitioner as senior to respondent No. 4, it is beyond comprehension as to why and in what manner in the seniority list dated 5.11.1996 respondent No. 4 was shown senior to the petitioner. There are no intervening circumstances justifying the said change. The Committee of Management has failed to discharge its statutory duty in getting the seniority list revised annually and had undertaken the exercise after 1986-87 for the first time in November, 1996 when it was faced with 'the immediate retirement of the permanent principal Viddyadhar Diwedi who ultimately retired on 30.6.1996. The said seniority list as such is patently illegal and is based on total misconstruction of the provisions of the Act, Regulations and Appendix A of the Regulations. Therefore, it was not open either for the respondent No. 4 or for any authority including the Joint Director of Education, Basti Region, Basti to treat the appointment of the petitioner as unlawful or invalid or not having the status of substantive appointment as the petitioner was not possessed of all the necessary minimum qualifications prescribed.
41. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it can safely be concluded that the petitioner possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed for appointment as a Hindi Teacher in L.T. grade at the institution, Sanskrit being optional as another teacher to teach the Sanskrit portion of the Hindi course was available to the institution. The petitioner's appointment was duly approved and the same was never revoked or cancelled and was challenged. Therefore, his appointment cannot be challenged subsequently in a collateral proceedings relating to the inter se seniority of the teachers of the institution. Thirdly, the inter se seniority of the teachers of the institution. Thirdly, the petitioner is senior to the respondent No. 4 on the basis of age having been appointed on the same day.
42. Thus, the impugned orders and the seniority list dated 5.11.1996 are unsustainable under law. Therefore, the appellate order dated 20.2.1999 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Basti Region, Basti, the order of the Dy. Director of Education, Gorakhpur dated 9.10.1997 and the order of the Committee of Management dated 8.7.1997 are hereby quashed and the seniority list dated 5.11.1996 is directed to be modified partly in so far as it relates to inter se seniority of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 and the petitioner is held senior to the respondent No. 4.
43. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed with no orders as to cost.