Substantive appointment and sanctioned leave govern teacher seniority; recognised service preserved seniority and principal eligibility.

Seniority in a teacher's grade turns on the date of substantive appointment, and an appointment that has been acted upon and administratively recognised is not ordinarily reopened in seniority proceedings on a technical objection about sanction of the post. Sanctioned extraordinary leave, by itself, does not extinguish lien or seniority unless the later engagement is shown to be a substantive appointment on a superior footing. On the stated facts, the earlier appointment was treated as valid for seniority, the teacher did not lose seniority during leave and outside work, and the seniority list was held unsustainable, leaving the petitioner entitled to consideration as senior-most for ad hoc officiating principal.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner's appointment as lecturer in Biology could be treated as valid and effective for purposes of seniority despite the initial objection that the post was not sanctioned, and (ii) whether the petitioner had lost seniority by reason of his absence on sanctioned extraordinary leave and his subsequent work in another institution.

Issue (i): whether the petitioner's appointment as lecturer in Biology could be treated as valid and effective for purposes of seniority despite the initial objection that the post was not sanctioned.

Analysis: The petitioner was appointed before the commencement of the 1971 salary statute, when prior approval for creation of a post was not required in the same manner. The record showed that the subject had been permitted and that salary was thereafter paid under the statutory regime. The earlier challenge to the appointment could not be reopened in seniority proceedings, because seniority is to be determined on the basis of substantive appointment in the grade and not by re-agitating the validity of an already acted-upon appointment. Long-continued service and administrative recognition also weighed against unsettling the appointment on technical grounds.

Conclusion: The petitioner's appointment was treated as valid and effective for determining seniority.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner had lost seniority by reason of his absence on sanctioned extraordinary leave and his subsequent work in another institution.

Analysis: The leave taken by the petitioner was sanctioned as extraordinary leave, and the governing leave provision did not provide that sanctioned extraordinary leave by itself caused forfeiture of lien. The nature of the petitioner's engagement elsewhere was not shown to be a substantive appointment on a superior footing. In those circumstances, the absence did not amount to a break in service capable of displacing his earlier substantive appointment in the lecturer grade. Since seniority in the grade follows the date of substantive appointment, the petitioner remained senior to the other teacher who was promoted later.

Conclusion: The petitioner did not lose seniority, and he was held to be senior to the respondent teacher.

Final Conclusion: The impugned seniority determination could not stand, and the writ petition was allowed on the basis that the petitioner was the senior-most teacher entitled to be considered for ad hoc officiating principal.

Ratio Decidendi: For seniority in a teacher's grade, the decisive factor is the date of substantive appointment; an appointment that has been acted upon and recognized cannot ordinarily be reopened in seniority proceedings, and sanctioned extraordinary leave does not by itself extinguish lien or seniority absent a substantive appointment elsewhere.

---