AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The respondent-University issued a notification in the month of January, 1987 calling for applications from the eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Stenographer (recruitment of non4eaching staff). The petitioner applied for the said post. The petitioner was called for written test on 28-2-1987 and having been qualified in the said test, he was interviewed by the selection Committee on 2-3-1987 and he was selected for the post. The respondents communicated the recommendation of the selection committee after the approval of the appointment as steno by the Vice-Chancellor vide appointment order dated 1-8-1987 with instructions to the petitioner to join immediately but not later than 24-8-1987. At this juncture itself, it is relevant to note that the petitioner was appointed on purely temporary basis and for a period of six months only from the date of his joining. The petitioner joined the respondent establishment on 24-8-1987. Subsequently, the Deputy Registrar (Development) issued Office Order dated 2-3-1988 in continuation of the earlier appointment order dated 1-8-1987 extending the period of appointment for a further period of six months with effect from 24-2-1988 or till the post is filled up on regular basis, whichever is earlier. On 6-3-1988, the Acting Registrar of the respondent-University issued proceedings appointing the petitioner as Stenographer on regular basis in the Academic Staff College of the University on a starting basic pay of Rs. 1,200/- per month plus usual allowances, as admissible under the rules of the University in the scale of pay of RS.1200-30-1560-EB-40-2040/-. The petitioner was directed to join duty immediately but not later than 30-3-1988. The Asst. Registrar (Estt. II) of the University issued Office Order dated 17-8-1992 declaring that the petitioner was confirmed in the post of Stenographer with effect from the date of his appointment to the post i.e. with effect from 2-3-1990 on satisfactory completion of the period of probation.
It seems that the employees of the Universities who have put in eight years of regular satisfactory service are entitled to "one upward movement" in the pay scale in terms of the scheme prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The petitioner, taking into account his entry into service i.e. 24-8-1987, submitted a representation dated 31-10-1994 to the Chairman, Grievance Committee of the University requesting the latter to count his services from the date of entry into service i.e. 24-8-1987. Then came the Office Memo dated 6-5-1995 issued by the Section Officer (P.III) informing the petitioner that the representation of the petitioner dated 31-10-1994 was considered by the Grievance Committee in the meeting held on 2-2-1995 and the Committee recommended that the services rendered by the petitioner as Stenographer only with effect from 30-3-1988 is taken into account for the purpose of considering him for award of one upward movement without disturbing internal seniority of the existing cadre of Stenographers. It appears that this recommendation of the Grievance Committee was forwarded to the University and the Asst. Registrar (P.II) issued Office Memo dated 30-8-1997 which reads as under:
"No.UH/P-II/97/2463. Date: 30-8-1997.
OFFICE MEMO
Sub .--Considering one upward movement benefit - Sri R. Nagarajan, Stenographer - Reg.
Ref .--His application dated 14-8-97.
The matter of grant of one upward movement benefit to Sri R. Nagarajan, Stenographer, has been further examined in the light of the recommendations of Grievance Committee and he is informed of the following:
The temporary services rendered by Sri Nagarajan cannot be taken into account as per the rules governing seniority of direct recruits which are in vogue from 4-11-1992. As such, the temporary services from 24-8-87 to 2-3-90 cannot be computed for the purpose of upward movement.
Sd/- Asst. Registrar (P-II)"
Since me request of the petitioner was partly rejected by the Grievance Committee and completely rejected by the University vide their Proceedings dated 6-5-1995 and 30-8-1997, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for issue of a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to count his service from 24-8-1987 to 1-3-1990 i.e. the period prior to probation for the purpose of seniority with all the consequential benefits and to grant any other reliefs as the Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The respondents have filed counter resisting the claim.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that me petitioner having been appointed in a regular course after going through the selection process prescribed under the regulations governing the recruitment to the post of Stenographer in pursuance .of the notifications issued by the respondents in the. month of January, 1987 and since the petitioner reported for duty initially on 24-8-1987, the entire service put in by the petitioner with effect from 24-8-1987 should be taken into account not only for the purpose of awarding one upward movement in the pay scale, but also to determine the inter se seniority in the cadre of Stenographers. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the respondent-University has practised invidious discrimination in not taking into account the entire service of the petitioner into consideration. Elaborating this submission, the learned Counsel would draw the attention of the Court to what is stated in para 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the Office Order dated 13-8-1986 issued by the Registrar of the University and produced at page 21 of the material papers and highlight that in similar fact situation in the case of one Sri V. Shantaiah, even the temporary service rendered by the said person was taken into account and similar treatment was denied to the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the University would contend that the very initial appointment of the petitioner vide appointment order dated 1-8-1987 for a period of six months was against a post earmarked for the Scheduled Caste candidates and he came to be appointed on regular basis only by the Office Order dated 16-3-1988 with effect from 30-3-1988 against a post meant for open category candidates.
The petitioner''s contention that the entire service put in by him with effect from 24-8-1987 should be taken into account for the purpose of awarding one upward movement in the pay scale and for the purpose of fixing his inter se seniority in the cadre of Stenographers is not well founded, and the relief cannot be granted in full. I say this because, in the appointment order issued on 1-8-1987, it was abundantly made clear that the appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary and for a period of six months only, and the service that was put in pursuance of the said appointment order will not count for University service, and the subsequent Office Order dated 2-3-1988 extending the services of the petitioner also makes it very clear that the petitioner''s services were extended for a further period of six months with effect from 24-2-1988 or till the post is filled on regular basis. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner''s initial appointment was itself on regular basis is untenable, and if that was the case of the petitioner, he would have made a grievance at the relevant point of time when Office Orders were issued on 1-8-1987 and 2-3-1988. However, the petitioner came to be appointed on regular basis by the Office Order dated 16-3-1988 issued by the Acting Registrar of the University. A perusal of that order makes it very clear that the petitioner was appointed on regular basis and he was placed on probation for a period of two years. The petitioner was directed to join duty immediately,, but not later than 30-3-1988 in pursuance of his regular appointment order. Subsequently, by the Office Order dated 17-8-1992 issued by the Asst. Registrar (Estt. II), the probation of the petitioner was declared to be satisfactory. The resultant position is that, on such declaration being made by the Office Order dated 17-8-1992, the petitioner''s service should be taken into account for the purpose of fixing inter se seniority with effect from 30-3-1988 and the service rendered by him prior to that date on temporary and ad hoc basis cannot be taken into account for the purpose of fixing inter se seniority.
The claim of the petitioner that his services with effect from 24-8-1987 shall be taken into account for the purpose of awarding one upward movement in the pay scale is well founded. I say this because there is absolutely no satisfactory material placed before this Court by the respondent-University to satisfy itself that the initial appointment of the petitioner vide earlier Order dated 1-8-1987 as Stenographer was against the post earmarked for Scheduled Caste candidates. On the other hand, it is contended by the petitioner that he applied for the post in pursuance of a notification issued by the University calling for applications from the eligible open category candidates to fill up the post of Stenographers and there was another notification issued by the University calling for applications to fill up the backlog vacancies earmarked for S.C./ S.T. candidates. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the University would draw the attention of the Court to what is stated in para 3 of the counter affidavit and would contend that from what is stated in para 3, it should be inferred that the petitioner''s initial appointment vide earlier Order dated 1-8-1987 was against the post earmarked for Scheduled Caste candidates. I have carefully read the averments in para 3 of the counter affidavit and the inference as suggested by the learned Standing Counsel cannot be drawn from what is stated in para 3.
The petitioner, in para 7 of the affidavit, has averred that the second respondent issued Office Order dated 13-8-1996 in respect of one Sri V. Shantaiah, Data Entry Operator, approving the appointment of that person with effect from the date of his initial appointment on temporary basis with effect from 20-7-1989. The petitioner has also specifically contended that Sri Shantaiah was initially appointed on temporary basis like him as Data Entry Operator and his services during the temporary period have been counted for seniority on the recommendation of the Grievance Committee and similar benefit ought to have been given to him also. The Office Order dated 13-8-1996 produced at page 21 of the material papers makes it very clear that iii the case of Sri Shantaiah, his temporary period of service was also taken into account. The Grievance Committee quite surprisingly did not recommend the petitioner''s case for taking into account the temporary service rendered by the petitioner for awarding one upward movement. For the limited purpose of awarding one upward movement in the pay scale under the U.G.C. scheme and in counting the service rendered by the petitioner and the said Santaiah, both of them should be held to belong to the same class. The University having taken into account the temporary service rendered by Shantaiah for the purpose of awarding one upward movement in the pay scale, it cannot discriminate the petitioner by refusing to take into account the temporary service rendered by the petitioner between 24-8-1987 and 30-3-1988. The University is guilty of practising an invidious discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed in part and a direction shall issue to the respondents to take into account the temporary service rendered by the petitioner between 24-8-1987 and 30-3-1988 for the purpose of awarding one upward movement in the pay scale in terms of the U.G.C. scheme. However, the petitioner is entitled to be counted his service only with effect from 30-3-1988 for the purpose of fixing of inter se seniority in the cadre of Stenographers. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.