R KAYAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is working as a Workshop Instructor, has been transferred by the impugned order passed by the third respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner after his selection as per the Recruitment Rules, was appointed on 05.06.1998 and she was also given a posting at Yanam in the Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Polytechnic in the capacity of Workshop Instructor. As per the Recruitment Rules, the probation period is two years and after the completion of two years probationary period, the petitioner was confirmed in the said post, by an order dated 10.11.2000.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the post of Workshop Instructor and Lab Assistant are not belonging to different category, for the reason that the Government, by way of a policy decision has already decided to merge both the posts viz., Workshop Instructor and Lab Assistant as one post for all purposes, including fixation of seniority, ordering transfers etc., Even in the year 2001, when the PIPMATE has prepared one common seniority list for both the posts viz., Workshop Instructor and Lab Assistant, even in the said common seniority list, the name of the petitioner who was initially recruited as Workshop Instructor was assigned with seniority No.1. But the petitioner does not challenge the said common seniority list on any ground, muchless on the grounds raised by her now for the first time in the present Writ Petition. Thus, when the petitioner has accepted the common seniority list already in the year 2001, it is not open to the petitioner now to say that the post of Lab Assistant is different from that of the Workshop Instructor post. THE learned counsel for the respondents also stated that both the posts are carrying the same scale of pay viz., Rs.1400-2600.