M. WILLIAM CAREY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Associate Lecturer in Pharmacy now redesignated as Lecturer as per AICTE Pay Scales by direct recruitment vide proceedings No.G3/33132/87 dtd. 9/8/1998 in Zone-IV along with 4 other Lecturers. Later the petitioner's services were regularized vide proceedings No.3/4898/1995, dtd. 20/3/1995 w.e.f. 28/10/1998 in the same cadre. Later promoted as Senior Lecturer vide proceedings dtd. 30/8/2008 and thereafter promoted as Head of Pharmacy Sec. vide G.O.M.No.83 dtd. 23/10/2012 by the 2nd respondent. The next promotion is Principal. The grievance of the petitioner is that from the year 1998 onwards seeking promotions by eliminating the ineligible candidates and when batchmates promoted in the panel year 2000-2001 also filed OAs and submitted representations from time to time stating that the remaining two vacancies of Senior Lecturers to be considered with petitioner and also obtained final orders in OA No.2413 of 2004 but no action has been taken. Later when the respondents called objections, the petitioner has raised objections on 28/1/2017 to the provisional seniority list dtd. 16/1/2017, but the respondents have not considered his case though he is entitled for promotion as Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy in the panel year 2000-2001. But in other zones namely Smt. K. Sujatha was promoted in the panel year 2001-02, in the panel year 2002-03 Sri B Jankaki Ramaiah in zone I and Smt P.Nirmala Devi in zone III was promoted as Senior Lecturers as and when the vacancy arises in the respective zones vide Memo dtd. 3/1/2007 and they are 8 years juniors to the petitioner in the category of Lecturer now promoted as Head of Pharmacy Sec. treated as seniors to the petitioner in the provisional seniority list dtd. 16/1/2017 and promoted now as Principal vide G.O.Ms No.60, dtd. 25/10/2017. which is highly illegal and arbitrary and therefore the same may be liable to be set aside.

(3.) The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying all the allegations made in the petition and contended that the petitioner is fully aware that there were only three vacancies of Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy for the panel year 2000-2001 and the vacancies were filled with eligible candidates. He has no dispute on the promotions of three vacancies. It is submitted that as to how the respondents could consider the representations to the petitioner, if there is no vacancy of Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy and no junior to him was promoted during the panel year 2000-01. The petitioner is not deprived of promotions at any point of time. It is also stated that the review of promotions in the cade of Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy for the panel year 2000-2001 does not arise, as no junior to the petitioner was promoted and no vacancy is available. It is also stated that the objections raised by the petitioner on the provisional seniority was considered by the 2ndrespondent and communicated the final seniority vide G.O.Ms.No.92 Higher Education (TE) Department, dtd. 29/5/2017 and the said G.O was prepared as per the rules. It is contended that the claim of the petitioner for review in the cadre of Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy and to place him at Sl.No13 in the provisional seniority list of Head of Pharmacy is illegal and not maintainable, as the petitioner was rightly promoted to the post of Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy in the year 2008 and requires no review. There was no injustice caused to the petitioner in the seniority right from his joining the department in all cadres. He further submitted that the petitioner is claiming the seniority along with his batchmates in the cadre of Senior Lecturer from the panel year 2000-2001, though he could not be promoted to the post of Senior Lecturer along with his batchmates for want of vacancy. It is further stated that the petitioner is comparing his seniority with that of the candidates appointed in other zones is not correct. The seniority and promotions in the cadre of Lecturer and Senior Lecturer cannot be compared with other zones since, these posts are zone posts. The petitioner was rightly placed at Sl.No.32 in the final seniority list issued in G.O.Ms.No.92, dtd. 29/5/2017. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is not acceptable and the present writ is not maintainable.