P SRILAKSHMI Vs. NIZAMS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 11-7-1997 in W.P. No.16579 of 1994 insofar as the learned Judge has not granted any relief to the petitioner as against respondents 4, 5,7 and 8.

(2.) The background facts leading to the filing of the writ petition be briefly noted first and they are as follows: The appellant viz., Smt. P. Srilakshmi is the petitioner in the Writ Petition. The petitioner is a Graduate in Commerce and she has passed Stenography Examination and obtained Diploma in English from Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages. The petitioner was selected to the post of Stenographer by the Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences (for short 'NIMS') after going through the process of selection and she was appointed as Personal Secretary to the Director and she reported for duty on 6-11-1986. The Director of the NIMS issued proceedings dated 25-2-1988 regularising her services along with others. As per the said proceedings, the services of the petitioner were regularised with effect from 6-11-1987. It was stated in the said proceedings that the petitioner was placed on probation for a period of one year from the date of regularisation of her service i.e.,from 6-11-1987. The Director of the NIMS issued another proceedings dated 29-6-1988 superseding earlier proceedings dated 25-2-1988, stating that the services of the staff including the petitioner have been regularised with effect from the dates shown against them and they were placed under probation for a period of two years from the date of their joining. Accordingly, the services of the petitioner were regularised from 6-11-1986 i.e., from the date of her joining. The Director of NIMS issued proceedings dated 24-11-1988 declaring the probation of the petitioner from 12-11-1988. While so, the Director of the NIMS issued a Memo dated 12-8-1989 directing the eligible Secretarial Assistants and Personal Secretaries, whose names were shown in the said memo, to appear for interview on 16-8-1989 for the purpose of considering their case to the post of Senior Assistants in the NIMS. The said Memo included the name of the petitioner also and, therefore, the petitioner and others attended the interview on 16-8-1989 for the purpose of being considered for appointment to the post of Senior Assistant. The petitioner was promoted and appointed as Senior Assistant vide proceedings dated 28-6-1991 with effect from 1-7-1991. While so, an Office Order No. 3/E1/225/NIMS/92, dated 1-6-1994 was issued stating that the tentative seniority list of Senior Assistants was communicated to the Senior Assistants and some of them have made representations against the ranking assigned and it was proposed to correct the dates of regularisation assigned earlier, and that a provisional seniority list of the Secretarial Assistants and Personal Secretaries, who were promoted as Senior Assistants, has been prepared and circulated to all persons whose names were shown and requested to file objections, if any, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said Memo. In the said office order, the name of the petitioner was shown at S1. No. 12 and the name of A. Ramachandra Rao, Superintendent, respondent No.3 herein was shown at S1.No.6. The petitioner submitted representations on 6-6-1994 and 4-7-1994 raising several objections to the said provisional seniority list. In the said representations, the petitioner has contended that the respondent No. 3 is a junior to her in the category of Personal Secretaries and therefore, she should be assigned position over and above the 3rd respondent. The petitioner also contended that there is no rationale for fixing different ratio at different times. The petitioner also requested the Director of NIMS to supply a copy of Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences Service Rules (for short, Service Rules) to enable her to submit a detailed representation. Thereafter, the petitioner was supplied with a set of rules stated to be the Rules under which the seniority was fixed and the petitioner submitted her further representation on 4-7-1994. Thereafter, the Director of NIMS issued Office Order No. 3/E1/225/NIMS/92, dated 23-8-1994 rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner and confirming the provisional seniority list. The petitioner being Aggrieved by the Office Order dated 23-8-1994 filed W.P. No. 16579 of 1994 praying for the following relief: "Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the proceedings No.3/225/El/92 of the 1st respondent dated 23-8-1994 and to quash or set aside the same and consequently to direct the respondent to assign the petitioner, the correct position in the seniority list of the Senior Assistant over and above the 3rd respondent and grant all consequential benefits including the seniority and promotion by declaring the action of the respondents in promoting the 3rd respondent, who is junior to the petitioner, without promoting the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal." The petitioner made the NIMS and the Executive Registrar of NIMS as respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. A.Ramachandra Rao, Superintendent, NIMS as respondent No. 3. However, subsequently by an order made by the Court in WPMP No. 20453 of 1996, dated 22-8-1996, M/s. K.Manohar Reddy, B. Sudhakar, K. Satyanarayana, Y. Ashok Kumar, P. Rajkumar were impleaded as respondents 4 to 8. Respondents 4,5, 7 and 8, it is said, were appointed as Secretarial Assistants in the year 1987 subsequent to the appointments of the petitioner and respondent No. 3. By applying the ratio of 2:1, they came to be promoted to the post of Senior Assistant before the petitioner was promoted to that post.

(3.) In the writ petition, it is contended that there is no rule or regulation prescribing the ratio to be followed for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant from Secretarial Assistants and Personal Secretaries, and the promotion should have been effected basing upon the integrated seniority of the two categories. Alternatively, it is also contended that even if such ratio is permissible, there is no justification whatsoever for following different ratio i.e., 1:1 up to 30-6-1991 and 2:1 from 1-7-1991 from amongst the Secretarial Assistants and Personal Secretaries. It is also contended that the Director and the Executive Registrar have no power to lay down policy or to make rules and, therefore, they have no power to fix the ratio to be followed among different feeder categories for promotion to the post of Senior Assistants. It has been further contended that even if the ratio of 2:1 is valid, there is no reason why the 3rd respondent was promoted prior to the promotion of the petitioner, because, the petitioner joined the service on 6-11-1986 whereas the 3rd respondent joined the service on 10-11-1986 and the probation of the petitioner was declared prior to the date of declaration of probation of the 3rd respondent.