Allahabad HC Lucknow Bench: Seniority Lists Issued by Principal, Not Committee of Management, Cannot Ground Acquiescence Plea
The Division Bench held that lists prepared by a college principal, not the Committee of Management, are not valid seniority lists under Regulation 3 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act regulations, and cannot support a plea of acquiescence or waiver against a senior lecturer.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow, comprising Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai — with the judgment delivered by Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai — on 24 July 2026 allowed a Special Appeal filed by a Lecturer, Jai Ram, and restored an order passed by the Joint Director of Education, VIth Region, Lucknow, that had declared him senior to respondent Sri Prafulla Kumar Mishra in the Lecturer Cadre at Krishak Inter College, Maholi, District Sitapur. The bench found that the learned Single Judge had treated documents issued by the college's Principal as valid seniority lists under Regulation 3 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 — a conclusion the Division Bench found wholly unsustainable. Since no valid seniority list had ever been published by the Committee of Management in conformity with those Regulations, the appellant could not be said to have acquiesced in or waived any right.
The Dispute Before the Division Bench
Jai Ram was appointed Lecturer (English) on 25 January 1996 after selection by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board, joining Krishak Inter College on 1 August 1996. His date of substantive appointment was therefore 1 August 1996.
Sri Prafulla Kumar Mishra had been appointed on an ad hoc basis on 25 July 1991 against a short-term vacancy. He was regularised only by an order dated 3 December 2001 under Section 33-F of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, with effect from 30 December 2000. His date of substantive appointment was accordingly 30 December 2000.
Despite this chronology, the institution's records had repeatedly placed Sri Prafulla Kumar Mishra above Jai Ram in lists circulated over the years. Jai Ram submitted representations in December 2014 to the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS), Sitapur, and the Joint Director of Education, VIth Region, Lucknow, raising his grievance about seniority in the Lecturer Cadre. When no relief followed, he filed Writ Petition No. 29967 (SS) of 2016, which was disposed of on 29 December 2016 with a direction to the Regional Level Committee to decide the matter within two months.
In compliance, the Joint Director of Education, VIth Region, Lucknow, passed an order on 25 March 2017 holding that Jai Ram was senior, having regard to the respective dates of substantive appointment: Jai Ram (1 August 1996), Sri Prafulla Kumar Mishra (30 December 2000), and Sri Gyan Prakash Mishra (16 December 2001).
Sri Prafulla Kumar Mishra challenged that order in Writ Petition No. 8702 (SS) of 2017. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 13 August 2021, quashing the Joint Director's order on the ground that seniority lists published in 1997, 2005, 2006, and 2012 had consistently shown Sri Prafulla Kumar Mishra as senior, and Jai Ram had never objected to those lists. The Single Judge held that unsettling such long-standing seniority after nearly eighteen years was impermissible. Jai Ram then preferred Special Appeal No. 288 of 2021 before the Division Bench.
Whether Those Lists Were Valid Seniority Lists at All
The central legal question was whether the documents relied upon as seniority lists satisfied the requirements of Regulation 3 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
Regulation 3(1) requires the Committee of Management of every institution to cause a seniority list to be prepared. Sub-clause (b) mandates that seniority shall be determined on the basis of substantive appointment in a grade, not initial or ad hoc appointment. Sub-clause (e) requires every dispute about seniority to be referred to the Committee of Management for a reasoned decision. Sub-clause (f) provides for an appeal to the regional authority against that decision. Clause (2) requires the list to be revised every year.
Separately, Regulation 2 of Chapter I of the same Regulations requires the Manager to maintain a seniority list based on the date of initial appointment for the purpose of selecting ex-officio teacher members of the Committee of Management on a rotational basis. Regulation 4 of Chapter I requires the Manager to supply a copy of the draft list to each teacher and to decide any objection through the Committee of Management before finalising it.
The Division Bench drew a sharp distinction between these two sets of provisions. The Regulation 3(Chapter II) seniority list governs service conditions — promotion and allied benefits — and must be prepared by the Committee of Management on the basis of substantive appointment. The Chapter I list governs only the rotational selection of ex-officio members and is based on initial appointment. The two serve entirely different purposes.
How the Bench Reasoned
The bench examined the three documents annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition. The first was a list dated 2 December 2005 issued by the Principal of the institution. The second pertained to the year 2011–12 and was prepared during a period when the institution was under “Single Operation” — meaning the Committee of Management lacked authority to administer the institution owing to an internal dispute. The third was a list dated 7 May 2016, again issued by the Principal.
All three documents ranked Sri Prafulla Kumar Mishra above Jai Ram on the basis of the date of initial appointment, not substantive appointment. None was issued by the Committee of Management. The Division Bench held that documents issued by the Principal of an institution cannot constitute a seniority list under Regulation 3(1) of Chapter II, and that no objection obligation could arise against such documents under Regulation 3(1)(e).
The bench also examined the document dated 11 December 2006 relied upon by respondent No. 1, which had been countersigned by the DIOS, Sitapur. On a bare reading it found that document to be merely a statement of particulars of lecturers in the order of their initial appointment, forwarded by the Principal to the DIOS. It “by no stretch of imagination” qualified as a seniority list under Regulation 3(1). The document for 8 November 2012 had not even been annexed to the counter affidavit filed in the Special Appeal.
The bench went on to find that the Counter affidavit filed by the Committee of Management before the Single Judge had referenced four alleged seniority lists but had not annexed any of them, and contained no indication that any list had been prepared after following the procedure under Regulation 3(1) — including issuance by the Committee of Management, invitation of objections, and circulation to teachers. Without such compliance, the provisions permitting objections under Regulation 3(1)(e) and appeals under Regulation 3(1)(f) would be rendered meaningless.
As for the institution's annual magazine Saurabh, relied upon by respondent No. 1 to show publication of seniority positions year after year, the bench held that the relevant pages merely listed teachers and employees in the institution and could relate at most to the Chapter I list for ex-officio membership purposes — not to the Regulation 3 Chapter II seniority that governs promotion.
Turning to the 2011–12 list — the one document that might conceivably be referable to Regulation 3, given that it was prepared during “Single Operation” when the Committee of Management was in dispute — the bench found that even that list was based on initial appointments rather than substantive appointments, and therefore did not conform to Regulation 3(1)(b). In any event, Jai Ram had raised his objection before the DIOS, Sitapur, in December 2014, which the bench found was not a considerable delay after a 2011–12 list.
The bench rejected the argument that Jai Ram had never raised any objection. His writ petition in 2016, his representations from December 2014 onwards, and the DIOS letters of January 2015 and October 2015 directing the Principal to revise the seniority list all demonstrated that he had consistently pursued his grievance. The principles of acquiescence, waiver, and estoppel could only attach where a valid seniority list had been duly published and the affected party had knowledge of it but chose not to object. No such situation had been established here.
The bench also found that no vested right had accrued to respondent No. 1. Sri Prafulla Kumar Mishra had not been promoted or assigned to officiate on a higher post on the basis of any of the alleged seniority lists before Jai Ram raised his objections in December 2014. It was in fact Jai Ram who had been given charge as Officiating Principal pursuant to the Joint Director's order of 25 March 2017 — and he had been divested of that charge only as a consequence of the Single Judge's judgment of 13 August 2021.
Preliminary Objection on Maintainability
Respondent No. 1 had raised a preliminary objection under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, contending that a Special Appeal did not lie against the Single Judge's judgment because the underlying writ petition had challenged an order of an appellate authority. Reliance was placed on the Full Bench judgment in Sheet Gupta v. State of U.P., 2009 SCC OnLine All 1613, and the Supreme Court's judgment in State of U.P. v. Madhav Prasad Sharma, (2011) 2 SCC 212.
The Division Bench rejected this objection. Under Regulation 3(1)(f) of Chapter II, an appeal to the regional authority lies only against a decision taken by the Committee of Management on a seniority dispute under Regulation 3(1)(e). The Joint Director's order of 25 March 2017 was not an order passed in exercise of that appellate jurisdiction. It had been passed pursuant to the direction given by the Writ Court in the earlier writ petition No. 29967 (SS) of 2016 — not on an appeal arising out of a Committee of Management decision under Regulation 3(1)(e). The preliminary objection therefore failed.
Outcome
The Division Bench allowed Special Appeal No. 288 of 2021. It set aside the judgment and order dated 13 August 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 8702 (SS) of 2017 and restored the order dated 25 March 2017 passed by the Joint Director of Education, VIth Region, Lucknow, declaring Jai Ram senior to Sri Prafulla Kumar Mishra and Sri Gyan Prakash Mishra.
The bench further directed that Jai Ram shall be given all consequential benefits flowing from his seniority within fifteen days of production of a certified copy of this order before the Joint Director of Education, VIth Region, Lucknow.