THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.681 of 2009 and 2837 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions are inter-connected. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.681 of 2009, The petitioner and the 4th respondent were selected and appointed as Lecturers in Physical Science and Mathematics respectively in the 3rd respondent- institution, vide proceedings dated 16.09.1999. Both of them joined the service on 03.03.2001. There was some dispute as to the seniority between both of them. The Management of the 3rd respondent-institution, which is admitted to grant-in-aid, considered the matter at its meeting held on 17.02.2003 and took the view that the petitioner is senor to 4th respondent. It appears that the 4th respondent submitted a representation to the Commissioner and Director of Education, 2nd respondent herein ventilating her grievance about the petitioner being declared as senor to her. The 2nd respondent in turn sought clarification from the Government. Through memo, dated 05.11.2007, the 1st respondent clarified/declared that the 4th respondent is senior to the petitioner, on the ground that she is elder to him. The said memo is challenged in W.P.No.681 of 2009. The 4th respondent in turn filed W.P.No.2837 of 2011 for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering her case for the post of Principal of the institution. She obviously based her claim on the memo, dated 05.11.2007. Counter affidavits are filed by the contesting respondents, opposing the respective writ petitions. Heard Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Nagesh Bheemapaka for 4th respondent. The core issue in both the writ petitions is as to whether who, among the petitioner and the 4th respondent, is senior in the post of Lecturer. Through the impugned proceedings dated 05.11.2007, the 1st respondent declared the 4th respondent as senior by applying some criteria. The appointing authority viz., the institution had declared the petitioner as senior to the 4th respondent. In case, the latter felt aggrieved by the resolution passed by the Board of Management of the institution, she ought to have preferred appeal before the competent authority, duly impleading the institution as well as the writ petitioner. The informal representation submitted by her to the 2nd respondent gave raise to reference of the matter to the 1st respondent, who in turn issued the impugned memo. Neither the 2nd respondent nor the 1st respondent has issued notice to the petitioner or the institution, before the 4th respondent was declared senior. The proceedings are, on the face of it, violative of principles of natural justice. On the short ground, the proceedings, dated 05.11.2007 are liable to be set aside. The 4th respondent can prefer an appeal before the competent authority even now duly impleading the institution and the petitioner. In such an event, the appellate authority can decide the matter on merits, after considering the submissions that may be made by the concerned parties. So far as the claim of the 4th respondent about promotion to the post of Principal is concerned, much would depend upon the outcome of the appeal, that may be preferred by her. For the foregoing reasons- (a) W.P.No.681 of 2009 is allowed and the proceedings, dated 05.11.2007 and the consequential proceedings are set aside; (b) It shall be open to the 4th respondent to prefer an appeal against the decision taken by the management of the institution declaring the petitioner as senior and he shall implead the petitioner and the management of the institution. If the appeal is preferred within four weeks from today, it shall be entertained without raising any objection as to limitation and it shall be decided on merits, after hearing the effected parties; and (c) W.P.No.2837 of 2011 is disposed of directing that the claim of the petitioner therein for promotion to the post of Principal shall be considered depending on the outcome of the appeal, that may be preferred by her, in the context of seniority in the post of Lecturer. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 21.09.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.681 of 2009 and 2837 of 2011 Date: 21.09.2011 JSU