GLANCY XAVIOR Vs. INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is an Office Assistant working in the Institute of Human Resources Development ('the I.H.R.D.', for short) seeks to set aside Exts. P9 and P10 to the extent experience of the petitioner is shown as less than 3 years and to command respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner to the post of Computer Programmer.

(2.) The petitioner submits that he and respondents 3 and 4 were appointed as Junior Office Assistants by Ext. P1 order dated 14.02.2006 and were notionally appointed to the promotion post of Office Assistants with effect from 13.03.2007, 01.03.2007 and 18.02.2007 respectively. In Ext. P1 appointment order dated 14.02.2006, in Ext. P2 order dated 10.07.2007 declaring their probation, as well as in Ext. P3 order dated 28.02.2008 appointing them as Office Assistants, the petitioner is shown as senior to respondents 3 and 4. On 14.06.2016, the 2nd respondent issued Ext. P6 notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of Computer Programmer for being filled up by internal selection and one of the feeder categories was Office Assistant.

(3.) The petitioner satisfied the educational qualifications, contends the petitioner. As regards the experience, the petitioner entered service on 01.03.2006 and was appointed as Office Attendant on 13.03.2007. He was on Leave Without Allowance (L.W.A.) from 20.06.2007 to 31.07.2013, Even after deducting the period of L.W.A., the petitioner has 3 years 1 month and 12 days regular service. The requisite experience is only 3 years. As per Ext. P8, the 2nd respondent issued Circular dated 24.10.2017 which is a provisional seniority list for appointment as Computer Programmer. In the said Ext. P8 list, the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 1 whereas respondents 3 and 4 were at Serial Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. As the petitioner had no grievance as to his seniority position, he did not file objection to Ext. P8. However, when Ext. P9 Final Seniority List was published on 31.01.2018, though petitioner's seniority position was retained at Serial No. 1, his experience period was shown as 2 years 11 months and 16 days. This was done without hearing the petitioner. Ext. P9 Circular was published on 31.01.2018. Before the petitioner could submit his objections to Ext. P9, on 02.02.2018 respondents 1 and 2 in undue haste, promoted respondents 3 and 4 as Computer Programmers. The petitioner's representation dated 03.02.2018 against Ext. P9 remains unanswered.