UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS Vs. S.BHASKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal has been filed, challenging the order dtd. 23/10/2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8601 of 2017, in and by which, relief was granted to the 1st Respondent for appointing him as Assistant Librarian

(2.) For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to by their original nomenclature in this Writ Appeal as "Appellant/University, R1/Writ Petitioner, R2, R3 and R4/UGC" in this judgment.

(3.) It was the case of the 1st Respondent / Writ Petitioner that he has been working as Technical Officer and is eligible to hold the post of Assistant Librarian. Though he had sufficient qualification, namely, M.Phil., he was not considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Librarian and four other persons were promoted to the said post. On enquiry, it was informed to him that as he was an Assistant Technical Officer, the post of Assistant Librarian was filled up from the cadre of Technical Officer. 3.1. It was further case of the Writ Petitioner that in the Syndicate Meeting held in the month of March, 2013, it was decided to go ahead with the appointment of Assistant Librarians immediately after the Selection Committee Meeting. Thereafter, though his juniors, viz., R2 and R3 were called for interview, the name of the Writ Petitioner was omitted to be called for an interview. He made a representation dtd. 23/3/2013 to the University for suitable consideration and there was no response on the same. 3.2. It was the grievance of the Writ Petitioner that though his name ought to have been considered even in the year 2008, pursuant to the possession of requisite qualification, the reason given for not promoting him was highly untenable and was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If the post is not a promotional post, then there should have been an advertisement for selection of Assistant Librarian. The act of the University in promoting juniors, when the senior is fully qualified, is highly arbitrary in nature. 3.3. It was stated by the Writ Petitioner that narrating all these facts, he filed a Writ Petition, the order of which is impugned herein by the University for a suitable direction. Learned Single Judge, after a thorough perusal of the entire averments made in the Writ Petition, held that denial of promotion on the ground of lack of qualification particulars in the proposal is highly improper and is unsustainable. It was urged that though his name was sent for legal opinion along with R2 and R3, pursuant to nonfurnishing of particulars with regard to the qualification of the Writ Petitioner, it was simply returned by the Legal Advisor on the ground of bereft of educational qualification and hence, it was crystal that though he had completed M.Phil., and Ph.D., qualifications, he was purposefully denied promotion so as to accommodate R2 and R3 herein. On that sole ground, learned Single Judge directed the University to grant promotion to the Writ Petition in the post of Assistant Librarian.