SURENDRA SINGH BENIWALversusHUKAM SINGH & ORS

                        [2009] 6 S.C.R. 880


A                 SURENDRA SINGH BENIWAL
                                v.
                      HUKAM SINGH & ORS.
                 (Civil Appeal No. 2766 of 2009)
                          APRIL 23, 2009
B
         [MARKANDEY KATJU AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.]

        REGULATIONS FRAMED UNDER UTTAR PRADESH
    INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, 1921:
c
       r.61(2)(b) - Seniority of a transferee teacher - Held: A
  teacher, on being transferred on his own request, would be
  placed at the bottom of the seniority list of teachers serving
  on the same cadre in the transferee institution - Teacher
  concerned having sought voluntary transfer was rightly placed
D
  at the bottom in the seniority list of the transferee college -
  Judgment of High Court set aside - Writ petition of teacher
  concerned dismissed.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
E 2766 of 2009.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 20.06.2007 of the High
    Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No. 19 of    ..
    2007.
F       Rajiv Dhavan, Dinesh Kumar Garg and M.A. Khan for the
    Appellants.

       Deba Prasad Mukherjee, Sunil Kumar Singh (for Jatinder
    Kumar Bhatia) and Amit Kumar for the Respondents.
G                                                                   f
        The following Order of the Court was delivered:

                               ORDER

        1. Leave granted.
H                               880
       SURENDRA SINGH BENIWAL v. HUKAM SINGH & 881
                        ORS.

          1-A. This appeal is directed against the impugned              A
     judgment dated 26.6.2000 passed by the Division Bench of the
     High Court of Uttrakhand by means of which the Division Bench
     dismissed the Special Appeal filed by the appellant against the
     judgment of learned Single Judge who had dismisse_d the
     review petition filed by the appellant.                             B
          2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 was
     appointed as Lecturer in English on 15.1.1981 in Murli Manohar
     Inter College· lshurteel, District Muzaffarnagar. Thereafter,
     respondent No. 1, on his own request, was transferred from the
     Murli Manohar Inter College to Panna Lal Bhalla Municipal Inter
                                                                      c
     College, Hardiwar on 21.7.1997. Since then the respondent
     No.1 has been continuously working in the said instit~tion as
     lecturer in English. The appellant was promoted as lecturer in
     Panna Lal Bhalla Municipal Inter College on 6.11.1989. The
     authorities concerned issued seniority list on 26.12.2000 D
     showing the date of appointment of respondent No. 1 as
     lecturer in English w.e.f. 15.1.1981 while the date of seniority
     of appellant was shown as 6.11.1989. The seniority list was
     issued after the approval of District Inspector of Schools.
     Appellant was given ad-hoc promotion to the post of Principal E
     on 1.7.2001.

          3. Respondent No. 1 made a representation before the
.    authority concerned regarding his seniority and claimed that he
     should be placed at serial number 1 in the seniority list on the    F
     basis of his seniority as lecturer as the respondent No.1 was
     much senior to the appellant, but to no avail.

           4. Feeling aggrieved by the seniority list, respondent No.
     1 filed a writ petition before the High Court. The learned Single
     Judge by order dated 8.12.2006 allowed the writ petition.           G
l·

         5. Aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge, he
     appellant filed a review petition which was rejected by order
     dated 23.2.2007.
                                                                         H
    882         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2009] 6 S.C.R.


A         6. Against the dismissal of review petition, the appellant
    filed a Special Appeal before the High Court which was also
    dismissed on 20.6.2007. Hence, the present appeal by special
    leave.

          -1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the
8
    parties and have gone through the record.

         8. The short question involved in this case is about the
    interpretation of Rule 61 (2) of the Regulations framed under
    U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 which reads as under:
c
          "61 (2): A teacher on being transferred in pursuance of this
          Chapter-

          (a) shall become the teacher of the institution to which he
          has been transferred and his pay and service condition
D         shall remain the same unless legally varied.

          (b) shall be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of the
          teachers serving on the same cadre and category in the
          institution.
E
          (c) in compliance to the provisions of sub-clause(b) the
          service rendered prior to the transfer in the institution from
          which the teacher has been transferred shall be treated as
          service rendered to the institution to which he has been         ..
          transferred."
F
        9. A perusal of clause (b) of the aforesaid Rule shows that
  if a teacher goes on voluntary transfer from one institution to
  another, then the transferee teacher shall be placed at the
  bottom of the seniority list of the teachers serving on the same
G cadre and category in the transferee institution. As regards
  clause (c}, in our opinion, it has to be read harmoniously with
  clause (b) and so reading it, we are of the opinion that clause
  (c) deals with matters other than seniority e.g. pensionary
  benefits etc. However, as regards seniority, the clear rule has
H
      SURENDRA SINGH BENIWAL v. HUKAM SINGH & 883
-                      ORS.
    been laid down in clause (b) i.e. that if a teacher seeks voluntary A
    transfer from college/institution to another college/institution, the
    transferee teacher shall be placed at the bottom of the seniority
    list. The reason for making Rule 61(2)(b) is obvious. When a
    teacher applies for voluntary transfer from one college to
    another, then if his seniority in the old college is maintained in s
    the new college, there would be great heart burning in the
    teachers in the transferee college. Hence, the rule was made
    that i.f a teacher applies for voluntary transfer from one coUege
    to another, such a transfer can only be done by placing the
    transferee teacher at the bottom of the seniority list of the c
    teachers serving on the same cadre and category in the
    transferee institution.

         10. As regards the words "same cadre and category",
    much has been made out of it in the impugned judgment.
    However, we are of the opinion that the interpretation given in      D
    the impugned judgment is not correct.
         11. Since the respondent No. 1 applied for a voluntary
    transfer, obviously, he has to be placed at the bottom of the
    seniority list of the lecturers already working there. This is the   E
    meaning of the words"same cadre and category".

          12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal
    is allowed and the judgment of the Division Bench as well as
    of learned Single Judge are set-aside. The writ petition is          F
    dismissed. No orders.

    R.P.                                            Appeal allowed.