M. Syril Bernad vs The Registrar, University of Madras

M. Jaichandren, J.—The Petitioner has stated that he was appointed as a Clerk in the Institute of Correspondence Education, on a

temporary basis, by the proceedings of the Respondent, dated 24.4.1981. Thereafter, by an order, dated 23.12.1983, the post held by the

Petitioner, along with that of 174 others, had been made permanent and had been re-designated as ''Temporary Junior Assistant''. While so, by an

official communication, dated 18.10.1985, the service of the Petitioner had been regularized and the post held by him had been re-designated as

''Regular Junior Assistant'', with retrospective effect, from 16.11.1984. Thereafter, the Petitioner had been promoted as an ''Assistant'', in the

month of December, 1990, and the said post had been re-designated as ''Assistant Section Officer'', by an order, dated 23.9.1994. Thereafter,

the name of the Petitioner had been included in the selection grade category, on 23.9.2004.

It has been stated that in the cadre of ''Junior Assistant'', the Petitioner''s name was in the Serial No. 428, as per the seniority list prepared, on

1.1.1996. The said seniority list had been prepared taking into account the date of the Petitioner''s appointment in the substantive post. Similarly,

the placements had been given to the Petitioner and to the other 174 candidates, with effect from 24.12.1983, considering the date of their

regularization and the respective appointments made in the substantive posts. Accordingly, all the 175 temporary appointees, appointed from the

year, 1978, had been regularized and re-designated as Junior Assistants. As such, the name of the Petitioner was found in Serial No. 117, out of

175 similarly placed persons, taking into account the year of appointment and the respective dates of birth.

It has also been stated that, on 24.12.1983, the Respondent had obtained an undertaking from 175 temporary appointees, who had been

regularized, on 23.12.1983, that they would not claim seniority or monetary benefits, for the period from the date of their respective entry into

service, till the date of their regularization i.e. 23.12.1983.

It had been further stated that the Petitioner, having been promoted as an Assistant, in the year 1990 and as the said post had been re-

designated as ''Assistant Section Officer'', the next avenue of promotion of the Petitioner is that of ''Section Officer'' for which the Petitioner is

eligible. While so, the Petitioner came to know that the seniority list had been altered re-fixing his name at the bottom of the list containing the

names of the 175 regularized candidates. The said revision of the seniority list had been done without any notice and without giving an opportunity

of hearing to the Petitioner. In such circumstances, the Petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the Respondents, it has been stated that due to the exigencies that had arisen, the University of

Madras, had taken a decision, during the year 1983, to absorb the 175 temporary employees, working in the University, as temporary

tabulated/daily wagers. On receipt of the appointment orders, all the staff, except the following five persons, had joined duty, on 24.12.1983. The

five persons mentioned below had joined on the different dates mentioned against their names:

Sl. No. Name Joined on

A. Abdul Jaleel 27.12.1983

A. L. elango 28.12.1983

M. SyrilBernad 28.12.1983

C. Kasi 30.12.1983

M. Gnanasekaran 10.2.1984

It has been further stated that out of the 175 Junior Assistants, 86 of them had been regularized and confirmed in the existing vacancies, with

effect from 24.12.1983. The others had been regularized, subsequently, on various dates, as and when the vacancies arose. On 10.2.1984, one

Junior Assistant, by name S.T.Tamizharasi had been appointed on compassionate grounds and 85 class II Junior Assistants had been promoted,

on 13.2.1984.

It has been further stated that the Accounts and Audit Committee, in its meeting held, on 30.3.1988, had decided that the seniority of Junior

Assistants must be fixed, with reference to their dates of appointment, in the following order:

A) 175 persons appointed, with effect from 24.12.1983.

B) S.T.Tamilarasi appointed, with effect from 10.2.1984.

C) 8 persons promoted from Class-IV, with effect from 13.2.1984.

The said appointments had been approved by the Syndicate of the University, on 27.4.1988, and it had been communicated to all the employees,

on 18.6.1988. Subsequently, it had been found that only 86 of the 175 candidates had been appointed against subsequent posts, on 24.12.1983.

The remaining 68 candidates had been confirmed and regularized after the 9 Junior Assistants mentioned in Clauses (b) and (c) shown above. In

such circumstances, the Syndicate, at its Meeting held on 17.11.1990, had re-fixed the seniority of the Junior Assistants, in the following order.

(a) 86 persons of 175 batch, appointed with effect from 24.12.1983.

(b) Tmt. S.T. Thamizharasi, appointed with effect from 10.2.1984

(c) persons promoted as Junior Assistants with effect from 13.2.1984

(d) 68 persons, out of the 175 (batch) appointed with effect from 24.12.1983 and regularized and confirmed on different dates, starting from

31.3.1984.

Such an arrangement had been communicated to all the employees, by the communication, dated 14.12.1990. The said communication was the

subject matter of challenge before this Court, in W.P. No. 1354 of 1991. By an order, dated 30.9.1991, this Court had disposed of the writ

petition with a direction to the Respondent University to call for and consider the objections of the Petitioners therein and to re-fix the seniority.

Accordingly, objections were called for and considered by the Establishment Committee. The Establishment Committee, at its meeting held, on

25.2.1992, resolved as follows:

Since the entire 175 batch was appointed before regularization of seven candidates, the seven candidates ought to have been placed only after the

eligible candidates of the 175 batch. Therefore, the Committee suggested revision of date of regularization/seniority as per the annexure enclosed.

The said resolution had been approved by the Syndicate at its meeting, held on 25.9.1992. The resolution of the Syndicate had been duly

communicated to the staff concerned, vide Communication No. F1/Estt/92/5573, dated 9.11.1992.

It had been further stated that during the year, 1996, the Syndicate, at its meeting held on 15.3.1996, had considered a mass representation

from the 175 batch of staff that all of them may be regularized from the same date in the post of Junior Assistant, even though some of them had

been appointed in substantive posts on subsequent dates. While accepting the said request it was also found that some of them, who had joined

duty subsequent to 24.12.1983, could be regularized only from their date of joining duty. Therefore, the Syndicate had resolved that the 175 batch

staff could be regularised from the date of their appointments i.e. 24.12.1983, against supernumerary posts. The staff, who had joined after

24.12.1983, could be regularised from the respective dates of their joining duty and the monetary benefits be given to them accordingly. Since the

Petitioner had joined duty only on 28.12.1983, he had been informed by an official communication, dated 18.4.1996, that his services were

regularized in the Respondent University, with effect from 28.12.1983. Accordingly, he had been placed in the seniority list on the basis of his date

of joining duty.

It has been further stated that after keeping quiet for nearly 10 years, the Petitioner had approached this Court, only in the year, 2006,

challenging the reply of the Respondent University sent in response to his representation. Further, if the prayer of the Petitioner for revision of his

seniority is granted, the seniority of 31 other employees would be affected. The Petitioner had not arrayed those persons as Respondents in the

present writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is bad in law for non-joinder of necessary parties. In such circumstances, the writ petition filed by

the Petitioner is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits.

In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the Respondents

and in view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records

available, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the

Petitioner, in the present writ petition.

The Petitioner has not been in a position to show that he had No. knowledge of the resolutions of the Syndicate and the consequential

arrangements made by the Respondent University, with regard to the fixation of seniority of the 175 candidates in question. The Petitioner ought to

have agitated the matter, if he had thought it fit to do so, at the earliest point of time, if there had been good reasons for challenging the seniority

fixed by the Respondent University.

It would not be open to the Petitioner to challenge the fixation of seniority, belatedly, long after the seniority of the 175 candidates had been

settled. Further, the Petitioner had not made those candidates, who would be adversely affected by the re-fixation of the seniority, as Respondents

in the present writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is also unsustainable in the eye of law for non-joinder of necessary parties. As such, the

contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be countenanced. Further, No. relief can be granted in favour of the Petitioner, at this belated

stage. Since, the writ petition is devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No. costs.