VENUKUMAR M S Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are Roneo Operators in the Mahatma Gandhi University, the 2nd respondent herein, having entered service as such on 17.8.1990 and 17.3.1993 respectively. Originally, Roneo Operators were included as Class IV employees. Later on, their scale of pay was made equivalent to that of Class III employees. But, they do not have any promotion avenues.According to them, in Government service and University of Kerala whose first ordinances have been adopted by the 2nd respondent-University as it stood on the date of adoption, Roneo Operators on becoming Clerical Assistants by promotion, can aspire for further promotion to Assistant Grade II, which benefit is not available to Roneo Operators in the 2nd respondent-University. THErefore, according to them, they should also be considered either for promotion to the post of Clerical Assistant or treated as Clerical Assistants so that they can also aspire for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade II, which is the promotion post for Clerical Assistant in the 2nd respondent-University also, provided they have the qualifications prescribed for the same in the Ordinances. THEy would further submit that as of now, there is no difference between Roneo Operators and Clerical Assistants insofar as there are no Roneo machines to be operated by the petitioners and the petitioners are actually performing the duties of clerical Assistants, on work arrangement. THEy also have passed SSLC, which is the minimum qualification prescribed for Clerical Assistants for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade II. But, the representations filed by the petitioners in this regard, which were directed to be considered as per the judgment of this Court, were ultimately rejected by Exts.P11, P12 and P14 orders of the University, which, according to the petitioners, do not give any reasons for such rejection, especially when demonstrably there is injustice in the matter insofar as the petitioners working as Clerical Assistants have no avenues for promotion, whereas Clerical Assistants who have been promoted from Class IV categories are eligible for consideration for such promotion, provided they have the minimum qualification of SSLC. THE petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs:

(2.) THE University has filed a counter affidavit, wherein they would take the stand that there is no question of considering Roneo Operators for promotion to the post of Clerical Assistant insofar as Roneo Operators are in Class III category along with Clerical Assistants having the same scale of pay. While admitting that Roneo Operators do not have any promotion avenue, the University would contend that the petitioners have received two grade promotions within a span of 15 years and therefore they cannot complain about any stagnation in their career, because of want of promotion avenues.