P PARASURAMAN Vs. PONDICHERRY ENGINEERING COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these three writ petitions, the petitioners seek for quashing the order of the first respondent dated 8.8.1995 and to direct the first respondent to place them in the list of seniority in 16th, 10th, 11th place respectively, in the seniority list for Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.) in the Pondicherry Engineering College, the first respondent herein.

(2.) It is sufficient to refer to the pleadings in W.P.No.6383 of 1995 considering that the pleadings in all the three cases raise identical facts and points for consideration. The petitioner claims that he was working as an L.D.C. He joined the services of the respondents as Group 'D' employee on daily rate basis and later promoted to the post of L.D.C. on 25.6.1993, by which order 12 Attenders were promoted on the basis of the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.). While he was working as an Attender, the respondents had published a seniority list on 17.8.1992 whereunder the petitioner was placed in 9th in rank as per date of appointment. The promotion was made on the same date whereby 12 Attenders were promoted. The seniority list in the grade of L.D.C. was issued on 8.8.1994 wherein the seniority of L.D.Cs. from 10 to 22 were published. In terms of the said seniority, the petitioners name should come in the 16th place as per seniority of the Attenders and also as per the date of appointment. But the respondents had placed the petitioner in the twenty second place and had placed the juniors of the petitioner above him by completely disturbing the seniority as in the Attender post. The second respondent who was in the 15th place in the Attenders' list, has now been placed in the 10th rank. Likewise, the other respondents also who were lower down in the seniority in the Attenders' Seniority list have been placed above the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to be placed in the seniority list in accordance with the list of the seniority of Attenders. Placing him below his juniors was arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that the post of Attender is a Group 'D' post for which there is no maintenance of confidential report as per the Rules. Nor has the petitioner been informed about the maintenance of any confidential report. Therefore, there was no reason for disrupting the seniority as held by the petitioner while he was an Attender.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. With reference to the issue raised for decision, the respondents would state that based on the Departmental Promotion Committee's (D.P.C.) recommendations the Government had promoted the attenders to the post of L.D.Cs. For fixing seniority in the promoted cadre, the D.P.C. took into account the performance report of the candidates in the panel. That was in compliance with the directions of the D.P.C. in the absence of confidential reports for Group 'D' staff. The filling up of the vacancy of L.D.C. post is by selection and the D.P.C. after perusing the performance report had recommended a list of candidates for promotion from the panel. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the seniority in L.D.C. cadre should be based on the seniority in the category of Attender, was not tenable. Though confidential reports are not required for Group 'D' staff, the Government of India guidelines provide for performance report even for Group 'D' staff with a view to maintain discipline and performance in the organisation. The contention of the petitioner that no adverse remark had been communicated to them, cannot be sustained since there is no adverse remark against the petitioner and the petitioner was included in the panel for promotion and was also promoted.