DR. M. K. Sfharma ( 1 ) THE main controversy that is raised in this writ petition is in between the petitioner and respondent No. 5. who is senior in service. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents No. 1 to 4 to treat the petitioner senior to respondent No 5 and to grant Selection Grade of P. G. T. to the petitioner by virtue of his being senior to the respondent No. 5 in service. ( 2 ) THE case pleaded in this writ petition is that the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 are working as P. G. T in the Rajputana Rifles Heros Memorial Higher Secondary School and are the two senior- most teachers in the Grade. According to the petitioner, both of them were promoted to the post of T. G. T. on 7. 7. 1967 with the upgradation of the school from the Middle standard to Higher Secondary School. They were also promoted to the post of P. G. T. on the same date. ( 3 ) BY an order dated 26. 11. 1971. the respondent No. 1 created certain posts of Selection Grade including in the Grade of P. G. T. In furtherance of such creation of post, one post of Selection Grade of P. G. T. came to be created in the respondent No. 3 school in which the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 were working. The Managing Committee of the aforesaid school interviewed the petitioner and respondent No. 5 on 9 S. 1973 for recommending the name for appointment to the aforesaid post in the Selection Grade of P. G. T. on the basis of seniority. The Committee found the petitioner to be entitled to be treated as senior being older in age to the respondent No. 5. other things having been found to be equal and, accordingly, the name of the petitioner was recommended to the respondent No. 2 for his approval for being appointed to the Selection Grade. The Director of Education, who is the competent authority under the provisions of the Act and the Rules to grant such an approval, on the other hand, considered the respondent No. 5 to be senior to the petitioner and directed the Managing Committee of the School to forward the papers of the respondent No. 5 to him. The Director of Education, who is the competent authority under the provisions of the Act and the Rules to grant such an approval, on the other hand, considered the respondent No. 5 to be senior to the petitioner and directed the Managing Committee of the School to forward the papers of the respondent No. 5 to him. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent No. 2. the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. Mr. J. N. Aggarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before me that the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 were appointed as T. G. T. on the same date, that is, with effect from 7. 7. 1967 and were confirmed as T. G. T. on the same date, that is, with effect from 7. 7. 1968, and were also promoted to the post of P. G. T. on the same date, that is. on 7. 7. 1969. The learned counsel submitted that since the length of service of both the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 is the same, the petitioner should have been considered to be senior to the respondent No. 5 on the basis of criteria of age which is an intelligible criteria and is also a uniformly accepted principle. He, further. submitted that under the provisions of Rule 98 of the Delhi School Education Rules (hereinafter referred to as "rules"), it is the appointing authority who is the competent authority to determine the question of seniority between two teachers, and the school authority in the instant case having considered and decided that the petitioner is the senior most between the petitioner and the respondent No. 5. the said decision should have prevailed upon the respondent No. 2 and consequently the petitioner should have been considered to be senior to the respondent No. 5 and should have been appointed to the Selection Grade of P. G. T. ( 5 ) MR. Adarsh Goel, appearing for the respondent No. 1 and 2. on the other hand, submitted that although the appointment of the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 to the post of P. G. T. were on the same date, that is, with effect from 7. 7. 1969, however, the respondent No. 5 was holding an equivalent post, if not a higher post than T. G. T: prior to 7. 7. on the other hand, submitted that although the appointment of the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 to the post of P. G. T. were on the same date, that is, with effect from 7. 7. 1969, however, the respondent No. 5 was holding an equivalent post, if not a higher post than T. G. T: prior to 7. 7. 1967, that is, with effect from 26. 4. 1963 and, therefore, the respondent No. 5 was entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid service also for the purpose of computation of length of service as T. G. T. and if the said period is computed for his service rendered in the T. G. T. Scale, he is senior to the petitioner on length of service rendered both as T. G. T. and P. G. T. and, therefore, the respondent No. 2 was justified in turning down the reference of the school deciding the petitioner to be senior to respondent No. 5 and directing for forwarding the papers of the respondent No. 5 for his appointment to the Selection Grade. The learned counsel further submitted that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the respondent No. 5 was appointed to the Selection Grade of P. G. T and since then he enjoyed the benefit of grant of Selection Grade in P. G. T. and has since retired from service in the year 1993, whereas the petitioner retired from service in the year 1988. ( 6 ) IN support of his submission, he relied upon the entries in the service sheet of respondent No. 5 to prove and establish that the respondent No. 5 was appointed and working in a post higher to the post of T. G. T. with effect from 26. 4. 1963 till the said post was abolished with effect from 7. 7. 1967 whereupon he was adjusted in the post of T. G. T. with effect from the same date. that is. 7. 7. 1967 on abolition of the post. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, submitted that the respondent No. 5 was working in the post of Headmaster with effect from 26. 4. 1963, but the said post was abolished with effect from 1. 5. 1967 and consequent thereto, the respondent No. 5 was adjusted as a T. G. T. with effect from 7. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, submitted that the respondent No. 5 was working in the post of Headmaster with effect from 26. 4. 1963, but the said post was abolished with effect from 1. 5. 1967 and consequent thereto, the respondent No. 5 was adjusted as a T. G. T. with effect from 7. 7. 1967 against a vacant post of T. G. T. which according to him is apparent from the letter dated 29. 1. 1970 (Annexure Rl ). ( 7 ) ON going through the records of the case and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties. it becomes apparent to me that the respondent No. 5 was appointed as a Science Teacher in the Middle Department ofthe respondent No. 3 school with effect from 7. 8. 1962 and he was promoted to the post of Headmaster. Middle School in the Grade of Rs. 280. 00 425. 00 with effect from 25. 4. 1963. Incidently, the said Grade of Headmaster was in a higher Grade than that of the T. G. T. which was at the relevant time in the Grade of Rs. 170. 00 380. 00 The said school w as upgraded to Higher Secondary School with effect from May. 1967 and the post of the Headmaster was abolished consequent to which the respondent No. 5 was adjusted as a T. G. T. with effect from 7. 7. 1967. On careful consideration of the photocopy of the Service Book of the respondent No. 5 produced before me by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 it is revealed that the service of the respondent No. 5 in the school after abolition of the post of Headmaster was treated by both the respondent No. 2 and 3 as continuous and no break in service has been effected to the service of respondent No. 5 between the period of the abolition of the post of Headmaster and adjustment of him against the post of T. G. T. carrying a Pay Scale of Rs. 170. 00 - 380. 00 During the period when the respondent No. 5 was serving as Headmaster, he was put in the Scale of Rs. 260. 00 which is apparently higher than the Pay Scale of T. G. T. carrying a Scale of Rs. 170. 00 - 380. 170. 00 - 380. 00 During the period when the respondent No. 5 was serving as Headmaster, he was put in the Scale of Rs. 260. 00 which is apparently higher than the Pay Scale of T. G. T. carrying a Scale of Rs. 170. 00 - 380. 00 In order to give continuity of sen ice to the respondent No. 5, his pay was also shown to have been accordingly fitted so as to adjust him in the post of T. G. T. Besides, the very word used in Annexure Rl to which a reference was made by the counsel for the petitioner prove and establish that there was clear intention on the part of the respondents to confer on the respondent No. 5 the benefit of continuation of service and, accordingly, adjusted him in the post of T. G. T. although prior to the same when he was holding the post of Headmaster, he was enjoy ing a better and higher scale for which his pay was required to be protected and accordingly so done by the respondent No. 2 is revealed from the Service Book maintained by the respondent No. 2 in the official course of business. ( 8 ) FROM the aforesaid factual disclosure from the photocopy of the Service Book of the respondent No. 5 as also on careful consideration of Annexure Rl. the letter dated 21. 7. 1970. issued by the Education Officer and on which reliance was placed by the counsel for the petitioner also, there could be no other opinion but to hold that the respondent No. 5 was holding a post equivalent to T. G T. if not a higher post from 26. 4. 1963 and if the said period is reckoned towards the service rendered by the respondent No. 5 in T. G. T. Scale, he was definitely and apparently senior to the petitioner. The resultant finding, therefore, is that the respondent No. 5 was holding an equivalent post of T. G. T with effect from 26. 4. 1963. whereas, the petitioner was holding a T. G. T post with effect from 7. 7. 1967 Consequently,although both the petitioner and the respondent No 5 admittedly came to be appointed as P. G. T with effect from 7. 7. 4. 1963. whereas, the petitioner was holding a T. G. T post with effect from 7. 7. 1967 Consequently,although both the petitioner and the respondent No 5 admittedly came to be appointed as P. G. T with effect from 7. 7. 1969, but with the longer length of service of respondent No 5 as T. G. T he was entitled to be declared senior to the petitioner and therefore, no illegality and/ or irregularity was committed by the respondent No. 2 in refusing to approve the decision of the School Management Committee of the respondent No 3 school for which he is fully empowered under the provisions of Rule 98 of the Rules. The decision in considering the petitioner as senior to respondent No 5 and also in directing to forward the papers of the respondent No. 5 for grant of Selection Grade is legal and valid and there is no infirmity in the same Pursuant thereto, as submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No 2. the respondent No 5 was granted the Selection Grade and he enjoyed the benefit till he retired from service in the year 1993, whereas, the petitioner retired from service in the year 1988 ( 9 ) IN the result, this writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed, but without any costs