EDWIN Vs. DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P2 is the vacancy notification issued by the respondents inter alia inviting applications for the post of Technical Assistants. Group I Technical Assistant carried scale of pay of Rs.750-940 and the qualification prescribed was SSLC with two years working experience in any Industrial Laboratory or Science Laboratories in Colleges or Universities.Responding to Ext.P2 vacancy notification, petitioners applied, and on being selected, joined duty, and Ext.P1 is the order of appointment issued to the first petitioner. Ext.P3 is a representation submitted by one of the petitioners. The main complaint in Ext.P3 is that the rules followed by the respondents are those followed in CSIR and that in respect of the post for which the qualifications are SLLC with ITI Certificate or experience in lab, the scale of pay prevailing in CSIR was Rs.950-1400 and that the scale of pay of Rs.750-940/- extended to the petitioners in Ext.P2 vacancy notification and the orders of appointment was erroneous. Complaining that the representation so made by them was not being considered or disposed of, an original petition was filed in this Court as OP No.6470/01, which was disposed of by Ext.P4 directing that the representation shall be considered and orders passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In pursuance to the judgment of this Court, it would appear that the petitioners were afforded an opportunity of hearing and Ext.P5 is the order issued and the request made by them for revision of the scale of pay that was extended to them has been rejected. It is seekingtoquashExt.P5 andtodirect thefirstrespondent tofix the scale of pay as Rs.950-1400 for Technical Assistants like the petitioners, that this original petition has been filed.

(2.) Ongoingthroughthepleadings,it would appearthat the petitioners proceed on the basis that the rules that are in vogue in the first respondent are those prevailing in CSIR. According to them for the post for which equivalent qualification is prescribed, thescaleofpayprevailinginCSIR isRs.950-1400 and therefore it is discriminatory to extend the scale of pay of Rs.750-940.

(3.) I am not in a position to accept the contentions raised by the petitioners for more reasons than one. First of all, the scaleofpaythat was extended to themwas indicatedinExt.P2 vacancy notification itself and therefore it was with the full knowledge that on their eventual selection and appointment, they will be getting pay in the scale of Rs.750-940 that the petitioners had applied to the post and accepted appointment subsequently. After having accepted the appointment with the full knowledge of the scale of pay that they are entitled to enjoy, it is not open to the petitioners to turn around and say that there is an error in the fixation of pay. That apart Ext.P5 order impugned itself shows that during the course of the personal hearing extended to them pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment of this Court, it was made known to them that the very basis of parity with CSIR claimed by them was erroneous. It is stated that this mistake committed on the basis of which the petitioners have proceeded was realised by the petitioners and they themselves had requested to withdraw their letter dated 11th January 2000. The letter dated 11th January 2000 mentioned in Ext.P5 is none other than Ext.P3, which was ordered to be considered and disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment. Thus the withdrawal of Ext.P3 would certainly indicate that the petitioner had no surviving grievance after having realised the mistake that they had committed.If that be so, I wonder whether they had any cause of action even to have filed this original petition itself. The statement in Ext.P5 that the petitioners had withdrawn Ext.P3 complaint is not refuted in the pleadings, in which case, the petitionerscould nothavehad anygrievance evento agitatein this original petition.