Civil Appeal No 3004 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 1821986 of the Allahabad High Court in CMWA No 9895 of 1985
RK Jain and Mrs Shobha Dixit for the Appellant
BD Agarwal LR Singh and Pradeep Misra for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH J
Special leave granted
The appeal is heard
The appellant Sudama Singh and Respondent No 1 Nath Saran Singh were both appointed as Assistant Teachers in LT Grade in the Gandhi Inter College Chilkahar District Ballia with effect from the same date ie July 8 1967 and were placed on probation for one year
Respondent No 1 was promoted as Lecturer in Hindi on ad hoc basis with effect from March 1 1976 by the Committee of Management and this action of the Committee of Management received the approval of the District Inspector of Schools on October 5 1976
On November 20 1976 the District Inspector of Schools again made an order promoting both the appellant and Respondent No 1 as Lecturers in Civics and Hindi respectively
The promotions referred to above had been made on an ad hoc basis
Likewise a large number of teachers who were working in the educational institutions which were governed by the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act 1921 hereinafter referred to as the Act  had been appointed or promoted on an ad hoc basis and the question of regularisation of their services was engaging the attention of the State Government during the relevant time
As a consequence of the decision of the State Government an ordinance entitled the Uttar Pradesh Education Laws Amendment Ordinance 1977 UP Ordinance No 5 of 1977 was pro 1052 mulgated on April 21 1977
By the said Ordinance a large number of provisions in four of the laws in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh concerning education were amended
One of the laws which was amended by the said Ordinance was the Act
By the Ordinance a new provision namely section 16GG was introduced into the Act
The Ordinance was replaced by the Uttar Pradesh Education Laws Amendment Act 1977
Section 16GG which was introduced into the Act by the Ordinance was allowed to remain in operation by the Uttar Pradesh Education Laws Amendment Act 1977
The relevant part of section 16GG of the Act reads as follows 16GG Regularization of appointment of ad hoc teachers 1 Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 16E 16F and 16FF every teacher of an institution appointed between August 18 1975 and September 30 1976 both dates inclusive on ad hoc basis against a clear vacancy and possessing prescribed qualifications or having been exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the provisions of this Act shall with effect from the date of commencement of this Section be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of his appointment up to the commencement of this section
         2 Every teacher deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity under sub section 1 shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of commencement of this section
         underlining by us Section 16GG of the Act which is reproduced above provided that notwithstanding anything contained in sections 16E 16F and 16FF every teacher of an institution appointed between August 18 1975 and September 30 1976 both dates inclusive on ad hoc basis against a clear vacancy and possessing prescribed qualifications or having been exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the provisions of the Act should with effect from the date of commencement of the said section be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of his appointment up to the 1053 commencement of the said section
Sub section 2 of section 16GG of the Act provided that every teacher deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity under sub section 1 should be deemed to be on probation from the date of commencement of the section
The services of the appellant and the 1st respondent who were working as teachers on ad hoc basis during the relevant period also came to be regularised by virtue of section 16GG of the Act
After their services were so regularised dispute arose regarding the seniority between them
The question of seniority between two or more teachers working in an institution governed by the Act is governed by regulation 3 in Chapter II of the Regulations made under the Act the relevant part of which reads thus 31
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       While the 1st respondent claimed seniority over the appellant on the basis of his appointment or promotion made on March 1 1976 the appellant claimed that he being older than the 1st respondent was entitled to be treated as senior to the 1st respondent by virtue of the second part of clause b of regulation 31 of the Regulations framed under the Act which provided that if two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date seniority should be determined on the basis of age
The above dispute regarding the seniority between the appellant and the 1st respondent was first considered by the District Inspector of Schools Ballia
After considering the history of the services of these two teachers the District Inspector of Schools came to the conclusion that the fortuitous appointment or promotion of the 1st respondent on 131976 could not have any effect on the question of seniority bet 1054 ween the appellant and the 1st respondent
He further observed that the promotions of the appellant and the 1st respondent had actually been made as per his letter dated November 20 1976 which read as under Office of the District Inspector of Schools Ballia Order No 15993 947676 Date 201176
PROMOTION Following Assistant Teachers of LT Grade are promoted to the Lecturer s Grade on the posts mentioned against their names
Promotions have been made under Para 5 of Regulations No Secondary51831577621875 Lucknow date
7776 made for the appointment of Principals for Govt
aided Private Secondary Schools
____________________________________________________________ Sl Teacher s Pay PromotionPost Remarks No Name Scale in the Lecturer pay scale ____________________________________________________________ 1
Nath LT Rs400 750Lecturer On the post Saran Singh Rs300 550 Hindi vacated by Order No Ordinance 1849651 dt 7276 issued by Director of Education UP Allahabad 2
Sudama LT Rs400 750Lecturer Singh Rs300 550 Civics Sd Illegible Tulsi Ram Jatar DIOSBallia He further observed that since the appellant and the 1st respondent had been accepted to be promoted in substantive capacity vide letter dated 20111976 issued by the District Inspector of 1055 Schools ie on the same date and since the appellant whose date of birth was 141937 was older than Respondent No 1 whose date of birth was 171942 the appellant should be considered as senior to the 1st respondent by virtue of the second sentence in clause b of regulation 31 of the Regulations made under the Act
The above decision of the District Inspector of Schools was conveyed to the parties by his Letter No 2858 6085 86 dated 1361985
Aggrieved by the decision of the District Inspector of Schools the 1st respondent filed a writ petition in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No 9895 of 1985 before the High Court of Allahabad
The learned Judge who heard the writ petition allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the District Inspector of Schools and declared that the 1st respondent was senior to the appellant on the ground that the 1st respondent had been promoted to the post of Lecturer on March 1 1976 pursuant to certain orders which had been issued under the Act and which continued to be in operation until section 16GG brought into force
This appeal by special leave is filed by the appellant against the decision of the High Court
It is not disputed that until section 16GG of the Act came into effect the appellant and the 1st respondent were both functioning on an ad hoc basis as teachers and it was only by virtue of section 16GG of the Act that they came to be appointed as teachers in substantive capacity
Section 16GG of the Act came into effect from 2141977
It provided that the teachers who were working on an ad hoc basis between August 18 1975 and September 30 1976 both dates inclusive against clear vacancies and possessing prescribed qualifications should with effect from the date of commencement of this section  be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided such teacher had been continuously serving the institution from the date of his appointment upto the commencement of this section
There is no dispute that both the appellant and the 1st respondent satisfied the conditions prescribed by section 16GG of the Act for regularising their appointment in a substantive capacity but what is crucial for purposes of this case is the date from which the appellant and the 1st respondent should be deemed to be holding their posts in a substantive capacity
Section 16GG of the Act clearly lays down that any teacher whose services are regularised should be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity with effect from the date of the commencement of that section
It does not say that the services of such teachers should be deemed to have been regularised with effect from the date from which they were continuously officiating in the posts in question
The date of commencement of the section in the instant case being 2141977 it 1056 should be held that both the appellant and the 1st respondent who were by then holding the posts of Lecturers on an ad hoc basis were appointed in a substantive capacity of the same date ie 2141977
The High Court omitted to consider the effect of the words with effect from the date of the commencement of this section  in sub section 1 of section 16GG of the Act and also sub section 2 of that section which provided that every teacher deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity under sub section 1 should be deemed to be on probation from the date of the commencement of the section
On the question of seniority between the appellant and the 1st respondent clause b of regulation 31 of the Regulations made under the Act as already stated provides that the seniority of teachers in a grade shall be determined on the basis of their substantive appointment in that grade and if two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date seniority should be determined on the basis of age
Since it is admitted that both the appellant and the 1st respondent had been appointed in a substantive capacity by virtue of section 16GG of the Act they must be deemed to be holding their respective posts in the substantive capacity only from 2141977 on which date section 16GG of the Act came into force
Both of them should be deemed to be on probation from 2141977 Vide section 16GG2
Any earlier appointment or promotion on an ad hoc basis has no bearing on the question of seniority
The appellant and the 1st respondent should be deemed to have been appointed on a substantive basis on the same date for purpose of seniority and therefore the appellant who is older than the 1st respondent should be treated as senior to the 1st respondent by reason of the second sentence in clause b of regulation 31 of the Regulations framed under the Act
We are therefore of the view that the High Court erred in declaring that the 1st respondent was senior to the appellant on the basis of the fortuitous promotion of the 1st respondent said to have been made on March 1 1976
The Judgment of the High Court is therefore liable to be set aside and the decision of the District Inspector of Schools has to be restored
We accordingly allow the appeal set aside the judgment of the High Court and make a declaration that the appellant is senior to the 1st respondent
The appeal is accordingly disposed of
No costs
PSS Appeal allowed


Summary:
 Under an agreement of sale entered into by respondents the appellant had paid the major portion of the agreed price long time ago and the balance thereof that was to be paid at the time of execution of the documents was a sum of Rs 75 only
Possession of the premises was with the appellant for all these years in part performance of the agreement
Upon failure of the respondents to execute documents of title the appellant sought specific performance of the agreement
The respondents canvassed the question of limitation before the High Court
The High Court however without deciding that question took the view that due to passage of time prices of lands had gone up sky high and it would be unjust to enforce the agreement of sale
Allowing the appeal by special leave  HELD The High Court exercised discretion on wrong principles
Without deciding the question whether the claim of the plaintiff was barred by limitation or not it proceeded to refuse to grant the relief on the ground that there has been good deal of delay and the parties would suffer if specific performance of the agreement was granted
This principle was not applicable to the facts of the case and the exercise of discretion was not proper
The matter remanded to the High Court for decision in merits
1100G E 1101B Madamsetty Satyanarayana vs G Yellogi Rao  Ors
   Dr Jiwan Lal  Ors
vs Brij Mohan Mehra  Anr  and Debendra Nath Mandal vs Sakhilal Kar  Ors AIR 1950 Calcutta 526 referred to