M. K. SHARMA ( 1 ) THE relief that is being sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition is lor a direction to the respondents For grant of Selection Grade to the petitioner in the post of Junior Music Teacher. The further grievance of the petitioner is in showing him junior to the respondents No. 3 and 4 in the Grade of Junior Music Teacher. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioenr is that the. said respondents No. 3 and 4 were not only unqualified for appointment to the post of Junior Music Teacher. but their names also could not have been included in the seniority list of Junior Music Teachers and also that they were not entitled to hold the said post. According to the petitioner, the actions of respondent No. 1 in doing so is wholly illegal and arbitrary and, therefore. liable to be set aside and quashed by this Court. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Music Teacher under the New Delhi Municipal Committee, (hereinafter referred to as the "committee") on 2. 8. 1965 in the Grade of Rs. 1 18-225. 00. According to the petitioner, at the time of his appointment as Junior Music Teacher, he was a Matriculate and possessed a Degree in Sangeet Prabhakar from a recognised Institution and accordingly fulfilled the qualifications requisite for the appointment to the post of Junior Music Teacher. The aforesaid scale of Rs. 118-225. 00 attached to the post of Junior Music Teacher was later on revised to Rs. 1 26-2 70. 00with effect from 21. 12. 1967 and to Rs. 135-320. 00 w ith effect from 27. 5. 1970 and again further revised to Rs. 165-350. 00 - retrospectively with effect from 27. 5. 1970 by a resolution adopted by the Committee the respondent No. 1. The Selection Grade for the post of Junior Music Teacher was introduced in the Scale of Rs. 340-400. 00. After the introduction of the aforesaid Selection Grade, actions were initiated for placing the qualified persons to the said Grade on the basis of the criteria of seniority-cum-fitness. The case of the petitioner is that he is senior to the respondent No. 3 and 4 as Junior Music Teacher and. therefore, he w as entitled to be appointed to the Selection Grade. However. The case of the petitioner is that he is senior to the respondent No. 3 and 4 as Junior Music Teacher and. therefore, he w as entitled to be appointed to the Selection Grade. However. the respondent No. 1 acted arbitrarily and without jurisdiction in placing the respondents No. 3 and 4 in the said Selection Grade in supersession of the right and claim of the petitioner, which actions arc also therefore challenged in this writ petition. ( 4 ) INCIDENTALLY it may be stated that the respondent No. 3 was initially appointed as part-time Dance Teacher under the Committee on 7. 10. 1963. Subsequently, however, the respondent No. 1 appointed the respondent No. 3 as whole-time Junior Music Teacher in the Scale of Rs. 118-225. 00. The said respondent No. 3 was allegedly not qualified and did not possess the requisite qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of Junior Music Teacher. The Committee by a resolution dated 31. 3. 1972 converted the post of Junior Music Teacher held by the respondent No. 3 into the post of Dance Teacher with retrospective effect, that is. from the date of his initial appointment as Dance Teacher and allowed him a revised Scale of Rs. 165-350. 00. ( 5 ) THE further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 was initially appointed as part-time Instrumental Music Teacher on 29. 10. 1963 and he also did not possess the qualifications required for the said post as he w as not a Marticulate. Accordingly, he also could not have been appointed like the respondent No. 3 to the post of Junior Music Teacher. It w as resolved by the Committee that the said respondent along with other similarly situated unqualified teachers be required to acquire the qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of Junior Music Teacher. According to the said resolution, respondents No. 3 and 4 did not possess the required qualifications meant for appointment to the post of Junior Music Teacher and, therefore, their names could not have been shown in the seniority list prepared for the post of Junior Music Teacher. Ignoring the aforesaid principle and committing apparent mistake on the face of the records, a provisional seniority list was issued wherein, the name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 4 and the name of the respondent No. 4 was shown at Serial No. 1. Ignoring the aforesaid principle and committing apparent mistake on the face of the records, a provisional seniority list was issued wherein, the name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 4 and the name of the respondent No. 4 was shown at Serial No. 1. The petitioner submitted an objection to the said provisional seniority list. However, a further revised seniority list as on 1. 5. 1973 was circulated wherein. the name of the petitioner was brought down to Serial No. 5 and the name of the respondent No. 3 came lo be sown for the first time at Seriall No. I On the basis of the aforesaid seniority list prepared by the Committee, the Ad hoc Committee further resolved by its resolution dated 29. 4. 1975 to grant Selection Grade to the said respondent No. 3 and 4 even though they stood junior to (he petitioner and also being unqualified to hold the post of Junior Music Teacher. Hence, the present writ petition. ( 6 ) THE respondent No. 1 has filed a detailed counter affidavit stating, inter alia. that the respondents No. 3 and 4 joined their duties on 7. 10. 1963 (A. N.) and 29. 7. 1963, respectively while the petitioner joined duty only on 2. 8. 1965. It is further stated that the respondents No. 3 and 4 were also confirmed in their posts with effect from 26. 9. 1968. The respondent No. 3 was appointed as Junior Music Teacher with effect from 7. 10. 1963 in its regular Scale and because of his performance, his selection was made as regular Junior Music Teacher as a departmental candidate as he was working with the Committee as part-time Dance Teacher. The respondent No. 4. on the other hand. w as appointed on 29. 10. 1963 on part-time basis prior to which he was working as part-time Instrumental Music Teacher, but, with effect from 29. 101. 963 he was given regular Scale of Music Teacher in the Grade of Rs. 118-225. 00. It is further stated that the qualification of the Dance Teacher and the Music Teacher arc the same and. therefore, computing the length of the service on the basis of the initial appointment to the post of Music Teacher carrying a Grade of Rs. 118-225. 00. 118-225. 00. It is further stated that the qualification of the Dance Teacher and the Music Teacher arc the same and. therefore, computing the length of the service on the basis of the initial appointment to the post of Music Teacher carrying a Grade of Rs. 118-225. 00. the final seniority list w as prepared by the respondent No. I which is impugned in the present writ petition. It is stated that the respondents No. 3 and 4 were considered by the Committee as fully qualified at the time of initial appointment as Junior Music Teacher in (he year 1963 and as both of them were confirmed in the year 1968 as Junior Music Teacher, they were necessarily to be shown in the category of Junior Music Teacher. After the post held by the respondent No. 3 was converted to the post of Dance Teacher with retrospective effect and after his name was omitted from the seniority list published in the Grade of Junior Music Teachers, the respondent No. 3 submitted a representation to the Competent Authority and on the basis of the said representation, the name of the respondent No. 3 came to be shown in the Grade of Junior Music Teacher as he was initially appointed to the said post and was also confirmed therein. ( 7 ) MR. G. D. Gupta appearing for the petitioner submitted that both the respondents No. 3 and 4 did not possess the requisite qualifications to be appointed to the post of Junior Music Teacher and accordingly their names could not have been shown in the seniority list prepared for the post of Junior Music Teacher and consequently, therefore, could not have been granted the Selection Grade in the post of Junior Music Teacher. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the proceedings of the meeting of (he Municipal Committee held on 31. 3. 1972 and. particularly, on the Agenda prepared for (he purpose and resolution passed therein. Referring to the Agenda prepared for the purpose, he has drawn my attention to the fact that the post of Music Teacher held by respondent No. 3 was converted into Dance Teacher with rctrospective effect, which is the date of his initial appointment and. therefore, by no stretch of imagination he could have been shown in the seniority list prepared for the Grade of Junior Music Teacher. therefore, by no stretch of imagination he could have been shown in the seniority list prepared for the Grade of Junior Music Teacher. ( 8 ) SO far the respondent No. 4 is concerned, his submission was that the said teacher did not have the requisite qualifications in the sanctioned scale meant for fully qualified teachers and- therefore, the respondent No. 4 also could not have been placed in the seniority list of (he Junior Music Teacher, nor boll of them were entitled to be granted the Selection Grade. ( 9 ) MR. Sushit Salwan appearing for respondent No. 1. on the other hand- submitted that both the respondents No. 3 and 4 were confirmed as Junior Music Teachers as far back as in 1968 and, therefore, they belonged to the Grade of junior Music Teacher and subsequent conversion of the post of Junior Music Teacher held by the respondent No. ? to the post of Dance Teacher could not in anyway affect the status of the respondent No 3 and that he continued as Junior Music Teacher for all intent and purposes and accordingly in view of the illegal omission of the name of the respondent No. 3 in the draft seniority list against which he submitted a representation and on consideration of the representation, the mistake was rectified and the name of the respondent No. 3 was rightly included in the revised seniority list in the Grade of Junior Music Teacher, in pursuance ofwhich. he was also given the Selection Grade being placed at Serial No. 1. On a similar footing, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 also supported the fixation of seniority so far the respondent No. 4 is concerned and stated that there is no illegality in showing the seniority positions of the petitioner, vis-a- vis. the respondents No. 3 and 4 in the revised seniority list. nor in granting the Selection Grade to the respondents No. 3 and 4 and that there is no case of supersession of the petitioner at all in doing so. the respondents No. 3 and 4 in the revised seniority list. nor in granting the Selection Grade to the respondents No. 3 and 4 and that there is no case of supersession of the petitioner at all in doing so. He further submitted that it is apparent on a bare perusal of the revised seniority list prepared by the respondent No. 1 that the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 5 whereas, the respondents No. 3 and 4 were placed at Serial No. 1 and 2 rcspectively The petitioner has not made persons shown at Serial No. 2, Smt. Tripat Kaur and at Serial No. 3. Smt. Asha Saxena as party respondents in the present writ petition. According to him by not making both of them parties and at least Smt. Asha Saxena as party respondents to the present writ petition since she w as also not granted the Selection Grade, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present writ petition. ( 10 ) THE records relied upon by the counsel for the parties reveal that the respondent No. 3 was appointed as Junior Music Teacher on 7. 10. 1963 in a regular Scale of the said post and he w as confirmed in the post of Junior Music Teacher with effect from 12. 1. 1968. Under a resolution dated 26. 9. 1968. similarly the respondent No. 4 was appointed on 29. 10. 1963 as a Music Teacher and was given the regular Scale of Pay of Junior Music Teacher in the Grade of Rs. 118-225. 00. He also appears to have been continued with effect from 12. 1. 1968 under the same resolution dated 26. 9. 1968. A copy of the resolution No. 69 adopted in the meeting held on 26. 9. 1968 is on (he record. Resolution 2a adopted in the said meeting shows that six Junior Music Teachers were confirmed by the aforesaid resolution from the date of their initial appointments with effect from the date mentioned against each. In the said resolution, the respondent No. 3 is placed at Serial No. 1. the respondent No. 4 at Serial No 2. Smt. Tripat Kaur against Serial No. 3, Smt. Asha Saxena against Serial No. 4 and Shri Gopal Kumar (the petitioner) against Serial No. 6. In the said resolution, the respondent No. 3 is placed at Serial No. 1. the respondent No. 4 at Serial No 2. Smt. Tripat Kaur against Serial No. 3, Smt. Asha Saxena against Serial No. 4 and Shri Gopal Kumar (the petitioner) against Serial No. 6. As against the names of aforesaid six persons, their date of appointment and the date of their continuation is also shown. ( 11 ) IN terms of the date of appointment, the respondent No. 3 and 4 have been placed at higher positions than the petitioner in the said list. It is further mentioned therein that, the work and conduct of each of the aforesaid persons was reported to be satisfactory by the Education Officer and. therefore, they were directed to be confirmed against the posts of Junior Music Teachers. ( 12 ) 1 have given my thoughtful consideration to the resolution adopted by the Committee in its meeting held on 31 3 1972. From the Agenda and the resolutions adopted in the said meeting, it appears that the respondent No. 3 and 4 were considered by the Committee for appointment as Music Teacher in the then prescribed Scale of Rs 118-225. 00. in pursuance of which. they were selected as departmental candidates and were given appointments in the said school Even the respondent No. 3 w as also given the revised Scale with effect from 27. 5. 1970. It is noted in the said Agenda note that in response to a query made by the Committee, the Director of Education. Delhi informed the Committee that those teachers who do not possess the requisite qualifications for a particular post are not normally considered fit to be retained in service and no Scale other than the one prescribed for fully qualified teachers had been laid down for unqualified Music Teachers. It is further recorded therein, that the Education Officer had suggested that the respondent No 4 might be asked to acquire the minimum qualifications for the post as early as possible. In pursuance of a suggestion made by the Education Officer, the respondent No. 3 who was declared capable of working as a Dance Teacher was suggested to be appointed as a Dance Teacher after converting the post of Junior Music Teacher held by him into the post of Dance Teacher. In pursuance of a suggestion made by the Education Officer, the respondent No. 3 who was declared capable of working as a Dance Teacher was suggested to be appointed as a Dance Teacher after converting the post of Junior Music Teacher held by him into the post of Dance Teacher. The aforesaid suggestion of the Education Officer appear to have been adopted through the resolution adopted in the said meeting of the Committee held on 31. 3. 1972. ( 13 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the issue that arises for consideration before me is as to whether the said respondent No. 3 and 4 would lose their seniority positions as Junior Music Teachers in which post they were confirmed on the ground of they being unqualified and respondent No. 3 being appointed as a Dance Teacher after conversion of the post of Music Teacher hel by him to the post of a Dance Teacher. ( 14 ) THE aforesaid Agenda note read along with resolution r3eveal that the respondent No 4 w as given time to acquire the requisite qualifications for the post of Junior Music Teacher However under the said resolution, no time limit was fixed for acquisition of such qualifications. There also appears to be no separate cadre of Dance Teachers as would appear from the resolution of the Committee dated 25. 5. 1973, a copy of which is annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure r9". ( 15 ) ON careful consideration and appreciation of the rival contentions of the parties and the records placed before me, I am of the opinion, that since the respondents No. 3 and 4 were confirmed in the posts of Junior Music Teachers and they continued to work under the Committee and their services were not terminated. they would continue to exist in the cadre of Junior Music Teacher. In terms of their date of appointment and also confirmation of the post of Junior Music Teacher, they would apparently stand senior to the petitioner who was appointed later than both the respondents No. 3 and 4. I am unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the fact that respondents No. 3 and 4 not possessing the requisite qualifications for the particular post. I am unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the fact that respondents No. 3 and 4 not possessing the requisite qualifications for the particular post. they would also lose their seniority positions in the seniority list of Junior Music Teacher even if they continued to be retained in sen ice inspite of the aforesaid shortcomings. If the services of the respondents No. 3 and 4 were not retained for not possessing the requisite qualifications, the position would have been different. But after having been allowed to continue in service inspite of the aforesaid shortcoming, they continue to exist in the cadre of Junior Music Teacher and accordingly. could not be deprived of the benefits arising therefrom. Therefore, the respondent No. I and 2 have rightly shown the names of respondents No. 3 and4 in the seniority list of lhc Junior Music Teachers. In my considered opinion, the respondents No. 3 and 4 having been appointed to the said posts earlier than the petitioner, and they having been confirmed in the said posts of Junior Music Teacher, they were also rightly shown as senior to the petitioner in the said seniority list. ( 16 ) THE decision relied upon. by the counsel for the petitioner in District Collector and Chairman vijay amagaram Vs. M. Tripurasunmdari Devi; reported in 1990 (3) SCC 655 is distinguishable on facts. The Supreme Court in that case held that if on subsequent serutiny of original certificate the respondent is found to be short of qualification and accordingly he was not allowed to join the service. the said action was held to be proper. In the present ease inspite of being short of qualification the respondents No 3 and 4 were allowed to continue in service and therefore, the ratio of the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. ( 17 ) THE criteria that is laid down for grant of the Selection Grade in the post of Junior Music Teacher is scniority -cum-fitness The proceedings of the Selection Committee for grant of Selection Grade in the post of Junior Music Teacher is on record. ( 17 ) THE criteria that is laid down for grant of the Selection Grade in the post of Junior Music Teacher is scniority -cum-fitness The proceedings of the Selection Committee for grant of Selection Grade in the post of Junior Music Teacher is on record. A perusal of the same reveals that both the respondents No. 3 and 4 were otherwise found to be fit except for the fact that the respondent No. 4 could not acquire the requisite qualifications for the post of Junior Music Teacher. On consideration of the Confidential Reports, the Ad hoc Committee recommended that the Selection Grade be given to the respondent No. 3 and Smt. Tripat Kaur and in the case of respondent No 4. the Selection Grade might be kept in abeyance till clarification is obtained from the Directorate of Education regarding his eligibility. Therefore, the Ad hoc Committee who serutinized the Confidential Reports of the respondents No. 3 and 4 found both of them fit to be given the Selection Grade. Since the criteria for the Selection Grade is seniority-cum-Fitness and since both the respondents No. 3 and 4 were found to be fit for grant of Selection Grade by virtue of their seniority positions being higher than that of the petitioner, they were given the Selection Grade by the Committee. The said decision of the Committee cannot by any streteh of imagination be said to be arbitrary and irrational. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, is without any merit and is devoid of force. ( 18 ) IN the result, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, but. without any costs.