JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan J. 1. The petitioner, Chandra Bhal Mishra, is at present a lecturer at the Balbhadra Intermediate College. Pali Subashpur, District Jaunpur He had joined this institution in the lecturer's grade in Economics on 20 August, 1958 it was a substantive appointment. The petitioner was confirmed on the said post with effect from 1 July, 1959. 2. It is not in issue that between the period 1 October, 1963 and 5 August, 1965, the petitioner did not work at the aforesaid institution. He had himself transferred to the Municipal Higher Secondary School at Jaunpur. This transfer from one institution to another was voluntary and at the request of the petitioner. The grounds for the petitioner changing his place of work was that he was not well and that the Municipal Higher Secondary School was nearer to his residence and that his ill health did not permit him to carry on his duties; at the Balbhadra Intermediate College, Jaunpur the petitioner had sought leave from his Institution. While working with the Municipal Higher Secondary School, IT is also not an issue that the petitioner's services were confirmed against a substantive post. It appears that the petitioner had second thoughts and wanted to make a return to his original place of working that is the Balbhadra Intermediate College. The Municipal Higher Secondary, Jaunpur had no objection in releasing him and likewise Balbhadra Intermediate College, Jaunpur had no objection to the petitioner returning to the institution. On this, there are also no issue between the parties. 3. On return to Balbhadra Intermediate College, Jaunpur the petitioner took recourse to having his seniority settled. On this matter he found a rival in the respondent, Adya Prasad Singh, also in lecturers grade at the Balbhadra Intermediate College, Jaunpur. It was his contention, broadly speaking, that once the petitioner had accepted a substantive post at another institution and was absent from the Balbhadra Intermediate College for two years, the advantage of this circumstance in the respondent becoming senior, in the absence of the petitioner, could not be denied to him. 4. The petitioner resisted the claim of Adya Prasad Singh, respondent No. 2 in being considered senior the committee of management, before whom the dispute was taken declared the petitioner Chandra Bhai Mishra as senior by its order dated 12 April, 1983. 4. The petitioner resisted the claim of Adya Prasad Singh, respondent No. 2 in being considered senior the committee of management, before whom the dispute was taken declared the petitioner Chandra Bhai Mishra as senior by its order dated 12 April, 1983. Adya Prasad Singh, respondent No. 2 was aggrieved by this order and be filed an appeal before the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, Chapter-2, Clause-3 (A). 5. The case of both the parties was considered by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and a decision dated 1 October, 1983 upheld the claim of the respondent No. 2. This Court has perused the decision of the District Inspector of Schools as am appellate authority the District Inspector of Schools has given reasons why it had upset the decision of the Managing Committee and upheld the representation of the respondent No. 2 in declaring him as the senior most lecturer at the institution. The District Inspector of Schools gave several reasons on why he took the decision In his order dated 1 October, 1983 Firstly, the petitioner Chandra Bhal Mishra had taken leave from the institution to join a Municipal Higher Secondary School a chance of serving another institution sought voluntarily. Secondly, while working for two years at the Higher Secondary School between the period 1 October, 1963 to 5 August, 1965, Chandra Bhal Mishra settled himself on a substantive post and an available substantive vacancy implying that he was waiving bin lien at the institution from where he came. Thirdly, the committee of management had not been consistent in accepting Chandra Bhal Mishra as the senior most lecturer and that on this point the committee had several times waivered in its decision by holding at times that Chandra Bhal Mishra is the senior and at times recording that Adya Prasad Singh is the senior most lecturer at Balbhadra Intermediate College, jaunpur. Fourthly, according to the District Inspector of Schools the decision of the committee of management in its inconsistent decision on the matter of seniority, did not inspire confidence. 'Lastly, giving recognition to the fact that Adya Prasad Singh had been continuously serving at the institution without a break, which Chandra Bhal Mishra admittedly had not been the District Inspector of Schools logically considered the former as the senior most lecturer at the college. 6. 'Lastly, giving recognition to the fact that Adya Prasad Singh had been continuously serving at the institution without a break, which Chandra Bhal Mishra admittedly had not been the District Inspector of Schools logically considered the former as the senior most lecturer at the college. 6. The only contention on behalf of the petitioner Chandra Bhal Mishra is on the aspect thai he had not abandoned his lien at Balbhadra Intermediate College, This may be so, but on the other hand, the record give? out that he settled himself on the post of a substantive lecturer in another institution Merely because between the two institutions a retransfer had been permitted, would not imply that an advantage which came to Adya Prasad Singh had been lost. The equity is not in favour of Chandra Bhal Mishra. In these circumstance this Court is of the view that having examined the appellate order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 1 October, 1983. under a writ of certiorari, this Court does not find any error, illegality, manifest or otherwise in the order which has been sought to be impugned, and merely because another view may be possible, when the one which has been taken is not incorrect is no ground for this Court to interfere. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vikrara Nath, Advocate has cited before this Court the case of Smt. S. K. Chaudhary v. The Managing Committee of Management Vidyavati Darbari Girls intermediate College, Lukerganj, Allahabad, a full bench decision 1991 (1) UP LB EC 250, on the proposition that long standing acceptability of a seniority between teachers of the same institution, can not be permitted to be re opened or disturbed and la such matters and that the Court will not interfere with a settled and an acceptable seniority list. For the full bench decision to apply, the facts in the two cases, the present one and in the metter of Smt, S. K. Chudhary case have to be seen. The circumstances in which the full bench decision has been given and the facts and circumstances of the present case are entirely different. In the matter of Sunt. S. K. Chaudhary (Supra) the nutter of seniority was in reference to the teachers of the same institution who continued in service without a break and no one left the institution to serve another institution on a substantive post. In the matter of Sunt. S. K. Chaudhary (Supra) the nutter of seniority was in reference to the teachers of the same institution who continued in service without a break and no one left the institution to serve another institution on a substantive post. Thus, long standing seniority between teacher was an accepted fact. The full bench decision, in effect, was laying the acceptable rule of estoppel. The facts are otherwise in the present case. It is not in issue that the petitioner left the institution for another institution ; it is not in issue that the petitioner not only worked on a substantive post but was confirmed on a substantive post at the other institution ; it is not in issue that the petitioner returned to the first institution ; it is not in issue that the opposite party had been accepted as the senior most teacher. The record reveals, that the seniority between teachers was not a matter of issue only between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 that is Chandra Bhal Mishra and Adya Prasad Singh. The impugned order shows that apart from the aforesaid two there was another incumbent one Ram Dulare Dubey who had also been accepted the seniormost teacher. If the petitioner had not left the institution, there was no occasion for any one to have raised the issue on the acceptability of a continued seniority being with the petitioner. Thus, the facts of the full bench decision are totally different to the state of circumstances of the present case. All that the present state of circumstances, imply is that impugned order not being interfered by this Court would mean that the respondent No. 2, Adya Prasad singh has been declared to be the senior- most lecturer and the petitioner comes next to him. 8. Thus, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.