Writ Petition No. 19432 of 2009 and M.P. No. 1 of 2009. Case: P. Dhanajeyam Vs The Vice Chancellor and The Registrar, University of Madras. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 19432 of 2009 and M.P. No. 1 of 2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Hema Sampath, Sr. Counsel for R. Meenal, Adv. And For Respondents: Mani Sundaragopal, Adv. |
| Judges | N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. |
| Issue | Right to Information Act - Section 48; Constitution of India - Article 14 |
| Citation | 2011 (3) LW 834 |
| Judgement Date | June 23, 2011 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Order:
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the resolution No. 83 passed by the Syndicate of the Madras University dated 25.8.2010 and direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioner as Assistant or appoint her as Assistant Technical Officer in the University of Madras with retrospective effect from the date she obtained the necessary qualification and grant her the attendant benefits.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows:
(a) The Petitioner's husband M. Paramasivam was serving as an Assistant Section Officer in the University of Madras and while in service on 5.12.1995 he passed away leaving the family in harness. The Petitioner, Widow of the deceased Paramasivam was qualified with PUC and Typewriting Higher grade in English and Tamil, Shorthand Lower grade in English.
(b) Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment due to the death of her husband and the University granted her appointment as Attender on 5.8.1996. According to the Petitioner she was assured of promotion, if she pass graduation. After joining in the service as Attender, the Petitioner passed B.A degree in History in the year 1998, Bachelor of Library and Information Science in the year 2000, Master of Library and Information Science in the year 2001, Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications in the year 2005 and M. Phil in Library and Information Science in the year 2006.
(c) Petitioner on each occasion of upgrading her qualification, submitted representation to the Respondents and prayed for promotion/appointment based on her qualification. Petitioner's regular promotion as Assistant was also not given even though similarly appointed persons were given promotion by waiving necessary qualifications.
(d) Petitioner submitted representation under RTI Act, for which a reply was given on 19.3.2008 stating that the Petitioner had the necessary qualification for several posts.
(e) On 17.7.2009 the University issued an advertisement for filling up eight vacancies in the post of Assistant Technical Officer including one vacancy for Scheduled Caste. Petitioner being a Scheduled Caste candidate, applied and she was not called for interview. Hence she filed the writ petition with a original prayer for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to promote the Petitioner as Assistant or appoint her as Assistant Technical Officer with retrospective effect from the date on which she obtained qualification and grant her attendant benefits as per her representation dated 2.3.2009.
3. The second Respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that at the time when the Petitioner was appointed, she was having the qualification of P.U.C. with Typewriting Higher Grade in English and Tamil, and Shorthand Junior Grade in English. Petitioner passed the other degrees subsequently, i.e., from 1998 onwards. The Syndicate of the University prescribed six years of regular service in Class-IV category for promotion to Class-III cadre, apart from possessing the qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant, and that written test should be conducted to test the knowledge of Tamil and English Typing. Again the Syndicate in its meeting held on 13.11.1998 revised the qualification for the post of Assistant prescribing any degree with English Typewriting Junior grade and one year certificate/diploma course in Computer Applications. The Petitioner passed B.A. degree in the year 1998 and has completed six years of regular service in Class-IV category on 4.8.2002 and also passed Diploma in Computer Applications (PGDCA) in December, 2005. Petitioner's request to promote her to the post of Assistant Technical Officer (Library) was not granted as the post is a direct recruitment post. Therefore the University advised her to apply for the post as and when the same is advertised for direct recruitment.
4. In view of the said stand taken in the counter affidavit, the Petitioner restricted the prayer seeking promotion as Assistant alone and also challenged the resolution of the University dated 25.8.2010 insofar as it directs to attend for written test, by filing an amendment petition and the same was ordered by this Court on 6.4.2011. For the amended prayer also the Respondents filed counter affidavit.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner completed six years of service on 4.8.2002 in Class-IV service like other 20 persons (the names of whom are found in page No. 95 of the typed set of papers filed by the Petitioner), who were similarly placed and they were given promotion without they appearance in the written test and the University has discriminated the Petitioner from among the equally placed persons. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out the order passed by the University giving promotion to several persons and some of the orders are filed in the typed set of papers.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial