INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCE Vs. GLANCY XAVIER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise from judgment dated 21/2/2019 in WP(C) No. 4840/2018. Respondents 1 and 2 had filed WA No. 2237/2019 and the 4th respondent has filed WA No. No.306/2020. The writ petition was filed by Sri.Glancy Xavior challenging Exts.P9 and P10 by which his right to seek promotion to the post of Computer Programmer has been denied. At the relevant time, he was working as Office Assistant in the Institute of Human Resources Development (IHRD).

(2.) Ext.P9 is the final seniority list of candidates who had applied to the post of Computer Programmer. For the post of Computer Programmer, the feeder category consists of Trade Instructor/Tradesman (Workshop Assistant), Librarian and Office Assistant in the ratio 2:1:1. The candidate should also have 3 years regular service in the said post under IHRD. In the seniority list at Ext.P9, it was mentioned that the petitioner was having only 2 years 11 months and 16 days experience as Office Assistant. By Ext.P10, the Staff Selection Committee have selected Sri.P.Babu and Smt.Sini T.V. as Computer Programmers. Petitioner sought for rectification of the said anomaly. But since nothing has been done in the matter, he approached this Court.

(3.) In the writ petition, petitioner contended that he was fully qualified to be selected to the post of Computer Programmer as per Ext.P5 Special Rules. He was denied promotion only on the ground that he was not having 3 years experience in the post of Office Assistant. But according to him, he was having the 3 year experience and the number of days during which he had availed medical leave had not been computed and treated as service. Petitioner submitted that he entered service on 1/3/2006 and was given notional appointment as Office Assistant w.e.f. 13/3/2007. He was granted leave without allowance from 20/6/2007 to 31/7/2013. After deducting the said period, according to him, his service can be categorized as 3 years 1 month and 20 days. Respondents 1 and 2 took up a contention that as per Ext.R1(a), petitioner's service as Office Assistant was only for a period of 2 years 11 months and 12 days. In the reply affidavit, petitioner took up a contention that in the case of all other candidates, the period during which they were working as Junior Assistant was also counted for computing the service as provided under the Special Rules.