Prabha Sridevan, J.@mdashThe appellant and the writ petitioner joined as Junior Assistants in the newly formed Pondicherry University. Their request for change of cadre was turned down, and so they have approached this Court. C. Balakrishnan (appellant in W.A. No. 359 of 2005) is a Graduate in Chemistry, while R. Nirmala Devi (petitioner in W.P. No. 5359 of 2000) is a Graduate in Zoology. Since the issue involved in both these cases is common, the writ petition is tagged along with the writ appeal. For the sake of convenience, the appellant in the writ appeal will also referred to as petitioner, which is his rank in the writ petition.
2. On 1.7.1987, the Science Department of the Pondicherry University was taken over from JIPMER. The petitioners were appointed as Junior Assistants originally were promoted on transfer as Lab Technicians in the scale Rs. 1320-2040. Their probation was declared. Their designation is that of a Lab Technician. Their grievance is that though they were designated as Lab Technician, they were all along on the Administrative Side and they have been denied promotion on the Administrative Side to Senior Assistant and upwards. According to them, the denial of their legitimate right to promotion and the consequent stagnation in one post is unfair and unreasonable.
3. In the order challenged in the writ appeal, the learned single Judge held that the appointment of the appellant to the cadre of Lab Technician was by way of promotion and his probation was declared as Lab Technician and thereafter, he cannot continue to be a member in the cadre of Junior Assistant merely because in 1993 his name was found in the seniority list of Junior Assistants, since even as early as on 23.9.1991, there was a request for a change of cadre and that was rejected, and it has become final and he cannot take advantage of what is essentially a consequential order to revive his cause of action.
4. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. No. 359 of 2005 and Mr. Balan Haridas, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 5359 of 2000 submitted that when the petitioners were appointed as Lab Technicians, the service rules were not framed. At that time, they were not asked to exercise their option to move to the Technical Side from the Administrative Side. The fact that they continued to be on the Administrative Side is borne out by the seniority list of 1993 and thereafter. So, they never left the Administrative Side and therefore, they are entitled to be promoted to Senior Assistant and upwards. Learned Counsel submitted that there are no promotional avenues for a Lab Technician and referred to 1975 K.L.T. 682 [Mukundan v. State of Kerala]
5. Mr. K. Srinivasan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/University submitted that the original appointments of the petitioners as Lab Techicians ,was by way of promotion and at that time, it was advantageous to them to accept the post of a Lab Technician because it carried a higher pay than that of a Junior Assistant. Having accepted that and taken advantage of that appointment, they cannot now turn back and say that they are denied of their rights of promotion. Learned Counsel also submitted that they have been given their pay at the scales comparable to the higher posts in the Administrative Side. According to the learned Counsel, the order of the learned single Judge did not deserve any interference and no ground is made out to grant the relief sought for in the writ petition.
6. On 22.11.1985, R. Nirmala Devi was appointed to the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist with effect from 1.11.1985. It was stated that the appointment was purely temporary and that she would be governed by the relevant rules and orders in force. C. Balakrishnan was appointed as Junior Assistant on 28.2.1986. On 23.7.1987, by order in Ref. No. PU/Estt/E3/I-10/87/8431, three Junior Assistants-cum-Typists in the Registrar''s Office were promoted to the post of Lab Technicians with effect from 1.7.1987. The three persons were the two writ petitioners, and another by name M.A. Rangaraj. They were appointed as Lab Technicians in the Department of Chemistry, in the case of Nirmala Devi and the Department of Biology, in the case of Balakrishnan. Nirmala Devi''s probation period was declared on 31.10.1987 and Balakrishnan''s on 30.6.1989. On 23.9.1991, Nirmala Devi appliedfor change of cadre from Lab Technician to Senior Assistant. Though we do not have a copy of her application, it is seen from Memorandum No. PU/Estt/NT3/1-9/1/87/8199 of the University dated 7.11.1991 that the application was rejected since Lab Technician is not a feeder post for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. This order remains unchallenged.
7. It is seen from the typed set of papers that Balakrishnan was entrusted with administrative responsibilities in the Centre of Biotechnology. He too gave an application on 2.7.1991, a copy of which is not enclosed in the typed set of papers, but by Memorandum No. PU/Estt/NT3/1-9/2/87/Io-370/7187 dated 23.9.1991, he too was informed that his request for change of cadre from Lab Technician to Senior Assistant cannot be accepted since it is not a feeder post. This order also remainsunchallenged. He gave a representation to consider his case sympathetically without any success.
8. In the year 1993, the seniority list of Group-C employees was circulated. This is the document that is the trump card for the writ petitioners. In this list as Annexure to the Memorandum dated 25.1.1993, they are shown as Lab Technicians under Category-VII and also as Junior Assistants -cum-Typists under Category-XI at Sl. Nos. 5 and 10. That is, there is a repetition of their names once in the cadre of Lab Technician under Category-VII and again in the cadre of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist under Category XI. Again, on 27.5.1993, as per the draft seniority list, the petitioner and the appellant were referred to as having substantively appointed in the entry grade post mentioned under Column-3. In this communication, their names are shown under the category of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist and the date of confirmation is shown as 1.11.1987, in the case of Nirmala Devi and 15.4.1986, in the case of Balakrishnan.
9. Thereafter, there was a revised list. In the revised list dated 5.9.1994, the seniority of all the employees finalised and communicated in the 25.1.1993 Memorandum and 19.5.1993 Memorandum was revised and in this revised seniority list, the names of the petitioner and the appellant are shown in Category-XIV in the cadre of Lab Technicians. Their names are also shown under the cadre of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist under Category-XX in the same memorandum. Again, representations were given by the petitioner and the appellant for change of cadre on 30.8.1999 and they were rejected by orders dated 15.11.1999 and 16.11.1999 respectively. It is against these rejection orders, the writ petitions were filed.
10. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is seen that as far as the service conditions of the non-teaching staff are concerned, though recruitment rules were framed on 30.9.1999, the same came into operation retrospectively and were given effect to from 16.10.1985 onwards and in the recruitment rules framed, there is a clear demarcation between ministerial and technical posts. According to the counter, both the petitioner and the appellant were appointed as Junior Assistant-cum-Typists, but promoted from the scale of Rs. 950-1500 as Junior Assistants to Rs. 1200-2040 as Lab Technicians. It is admitted in the counter that in the final seniority list, the petitioner and the appellant were figuring both under the category of Lab Technician and Junior Assistant. But it is stated that the entry in the cadre of Junior Assistant was only because of the fact that the petitioner had held the post. There was no objection from either the petitioner or the appellant for inclusion of their names under the category of Lab Technicians in the seniority list.
11. On 22.11.1995, in order to reduce the stagnation in the technical cadre, the Executive Council of the University considered the case of the existing technical staff and evolved a scheme for career progression with revised nomenclature and on 12.1.1996, they granted upward movement to both the petitioner and the appellant in the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 attached to the post of Technical Assistant on completion of eight years of service in the post of Lab Technician. This award of one upward movement placed them in the scale of Rs. 1640-2900, which is the same as the scale of pay of an Office Manager. The recruitment rules and the service rules provided for five years of regular service in the grade of Assistant for becoming Office Manager/Senior Assistant and therefore, neither the petitioner nor the appellant would have the qualifying service for promotion as Senior Assistant. It is also seen that though they were appointed in the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist, when they were offered a higher scale of pay, they accepted the promotion and came over to the technical side. It is clear that at that time, it was advantageous to them to accept the post of Lab Technician. This is why the learned single Judge observed that they cannot now return to the administrative line on the ground that the juniors had the benefit of promotion. Their original appointment as Technical Assistant was by way of promotion on transfer. It is also seen from the documents furnished by the learned Counsel for the University that on the basis of the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee, the University, by Office Order No. 1481 dated 17.10.2001, re-designated the petitioners as Senior Technical Assistant (Science) in the scale of pay Rs. 5500-175-9000 and by Office Order No. 155 dated 19.10.2007, the technical staff of the Pondicherry University, viz., the petitioner and the appellant herein, were awarded the next higher scale of pay, i.e., Rs. 6500-200-10500. On 20.2.2008, they have been awarded the next higher scale of pay and this is comparable to the pay fixed for employees who are promoted to the post of Section Officer.
12. In 1975 K.L.T. 682 (supra), a learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court did not accept the view taken by the Departmental Promotion Committee which held that the period during which the petitioner therein was absent from duty on study leave subsequent to the date of his promotion as Senior Grade Assistant cannot be taken into account for reckoning the petitioner''s seniority in the said higher category. This does not apply to the present case.
13. In
14. In
9. That then is the scope of bye-law 71(b)(ii). But that does not mean that we should interfere with the relief granted to Respondent 1. By pointing out the error that crept into the decision of the Tribunal, we need not to take to its logical end which will defeat justice. Respondent 1 is not a layman. He is a highly qualified engineer. Although he joined service with a diploma in engineering, he later-passed Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) and also acquired M. Tech. degree and one more diploma (D.P.M.). He was however, left without opportunity for promotion for about twenty years. This is indeed a sad commentary on the appellant''s management. It is often said and indeed, adroitly, an organisation public or private does not ''hire a hand'' but engages or employs a whole man. The person is recruited by an organisation not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must, therefore, be given an opportunity to advance. This is the oldest and most important feature of the free enterprise system. The opportunity for advancement is a requirement for progress of any organisation. It is an incentive for personnel development as well.1 Every management must provide realistic opportunities for promising employees to move upward. ''The organisation that fails to develop a satisfactory procedure for promotion is bound to pay a severe penalty in terms of administrative costs, misallocation of personnel, low morale, and ineffectual performance, among both non-managerial employees and their supervisors.2 There cannot be any modern management much less any career planning, manpower development, management development etc. which is not related to a system of promotions.3 The appellant appears to have overlooked this basic requirement of management so far as Respondent 1 was concerned till NR & AS was introduced.
The respondent before the Supreme Court was appointed on 20.4.1961 on a pay scale of Rs. 350-900 and remained there till 1981. It is in these circumstances that the Supreme Court made the above observations.
15. In the present case, the Departmental Promotion Committee has applied the Career Progression Scheme and the pay scales of the appellant as well as the petitioner have been revised and we also find their designation too is changed. In these circumstances, we do not think that the petitioners can have any grievance. The learned single Judge was right in holding that they had moved to the technical cadre on promotion when it was advantageous to them. We find from the annexures to the office orders that the pay of the petitioner and the appellant is not stagnant; it is constantly revised and their designation has also been revised. This action of the University is in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court cited above. In these circumstances the University''s action was justified since they do not have the qualifying service for being promoted to the next higher cadre on the Administrative Side and since the rules do not provide for a change of their cadre.
16. For the reasons stated above, the order of the learned single Judge is confirmed and the writ appeal is dismissed. The writ petition is also dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
