9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Seniority dispute between the appellant and respondent No. 4 in the LT Grade. 2. Validity of the promotion of respondent No. 4 to the post of Lecturer and subsequently to the post of Principal. 3. Authority to annul the promotion orders of respondent No. 4. Analysis: 1. The appellant challenges the order of the High Court regarding seniority, arguing that he was rightfully declared senior to respondent No. 4 in the LT Grade based on an order by the Deputy Director of Education. The High Court's interference with this order is contested, emphasizing that the legality of respondent No. 4's appointment to higher positions should not impact the appellant's seniority claim. 2. The dispute arises from the promotion of respondent No. 4 to the post of Lecturer based on a Resolution dated 1-8-1981, allegedly approved in 1991. The appellant asserts that this promotion was irregular due to the absence of a vacancy and challenges its validity. The counsel for respondent No. 4 argues that the promotion cannot be nullified unless annulled by a competent authority, highlighting that ancillary proceedings do not conclusively impact such promotions. 3. The Supreme Court clarifies that seniority is determined within a specific Grade or Cadre, independent of other grades. While the appellant's seniority in the LT Grade is acknowledged, the promotion of respondent No. 4 to higher positions remains valid unless annulled by a competent authority or court. The Court stresses that the legality of respondent No. 4's appointments is not approved, but unless annulled through proper channels, they remain unaffected by the determination of seniority between the appellant and respondent No. 4. Overall, the Court dismisses the appeals, maintaining the promotion orders of respondent No. 4 to the post of Lecturer and Principal, emphasizing that only competent authorities can annul such appointments in accordance with the law.
|
