Mohammad Javed and Others vs Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the seniority list dated 29-4-1999 (Annexure P-7) and to direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to prepare a fresh seniority list in accordance with law, further, to direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, not to give effect and promote any person from the said seniority list dated 29-4-1999. The petitioners were appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk (for short "the LDC") on the basis of recommendation made by the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short "the DPC") on the pay scale of Rs. 950-1530/- (Annexure P-2). The minimum qualification for selection and appointment on the post of LDC, inter alia, was passing of typing test. Admittedly, the petitioner did not had typing pass certificate. According to learned Counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners were initially granted one year time to acquire the typing test certificate, which was extended subsequently. The petitioners were also required to pass the departmental examination. In the meantime, the private respondent Nos. 3 to 43 were appointed having all the qualifications including typing test certificate. Subsequently, the petitioners also passed the typing test.

The question raised by the petitioners in this petition is as to whether the seniority of the petitioners would be counted from the date of initial appointment, i.e. 21-10-1993 or from the date of acquisition of typing test certificate.

Shri Koshy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were placed in the seniority list taking into consideration the date of passing typing test and as such, they became juniors to the private respondents, though the private respondents were appointed subsequent to the appointment of the petitioners. The respondent-University itself granted opportunity to acquire the typing test certificate, thus, they may be placed above the private respondents in the seniority list.

On the other hand, Shri Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents submits that since the petitioners did not possess requisite qualification of passing typing test, the petitioners were rightly placed below the private respondents in the seniority list from the date they obtained the requisite certificate of passing typing test and when they became eligible for the said post to the post of LDC.

Having considered all the facts of the case and also rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it is indisputable that there were no service rules, at the time, the petitioners were appointed and as such, there was no system of granting of seniority either from the date of initial appointment or from the date of confirmation or regularisation or on passing of typing test.

According to Shri Koshy, rules were framed subsequently and Para 8 of the Regulation of the University, provides that it is at the discretion of the University to grant one year or more time to obtain the typing test certificate. However, they will be entitled to other service benefits except the annual increment for the period. Since under the Regulations, the appointees were entitled to all the service benefits except the annual increment, the petitioners were entitled to seniority also from the date of joining the post.

The aforesaid contention of Shri Koshy is fallacious. The petitioners did not possess one of the requisite qualification, i.e., passing of typing test. In fact, the petitioners became eligible for appointment only when they obtained the typing test certificate, though the petitioners were allowed to work on the said post even without having the requisite qualification.

Thus, it cannot be held that on the date of appointment of the petitioners, they had all the qualifications which was essential for appointment on the post of LDC. The University has discretion to grant time of one year and further extended the period for obtaining the typing test certificate, but it does not mean that passing typing test certificate was not necessary. The University has taken a decision to grant seniority from the date the petitioners obtained the typing test certificate which does not seem to be unreasonable, arbitrary or discriminatory. Even otherwise, the petitioners were granted time of one year which was a facility to obtain typing test certificate which is mentioned in the appointment order itself but before acquisition of the said qualification, it cannot be held that the petitioners were having all the requisite qualification.

In view of the above, this petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.