OM PARKASH Vs. M.D. UNIVERSITY ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Civil Writ petition filed under Articles 226 /227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ or orders against the respondent - M.D. University (hereinafter to be referred to as the "respondent -University"), to consider his case for promotion to the post of Assistant with effect from the date, his juniors were promoted, along with other consequential benefits. Direction was also sought against the respondent -University for placing the petitioner at serial No. 261 above Shri Rajbir Singh, in the seniority list, taking into account the date of joining of the petitioner on the post of Clerk on ad hoc basis. Claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on adhoc basis on 25.3.1983, vide letter (Annexure P -1). His services were regularized on the said post vide order dated 10.11.1983 (Annexure P -2). Taking the wrong date of appointment of the petitioner as a regular clerk i.e. 28.11.1983, he was placed at serial No. 330 in the seniority list and for this reason he was not promoted as Assistant. Further claim of the petitioner is that in fact he joined his duties on 26.3.1983 and thus he should have been placed at serial No. 261 in the seniority list. It is averred that the petitioner was wrongly not promoted as Assistant and even his representation (Annexure P -7) for assigning appropriate place in the seniority list, was not considered. In addition, the petitioner has claimed that the respondent -University violated its own service rules for non -teaching employees. It is also claimed that the petitioner was treated differently though he was similarly situated with other employees, whose services rendered on adhoc basis were counted towards their probation period but the same benefit was denied to the petitioner.

(2.) THE stand of the respondent -University on the contrary is that no right much less statutory, has been infringed. It has been explained that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk purely on adhoc basis and for a period of six months and that too subject to compliance of certain conditions with effect from 26.3.1983 and had been given extension from time to time. One of the conditions contained in the letter of appointment was that the petitioner has to qualify the written test as well as typing test in English at a speed of 30 words per minute.

(3.) IT has also been explained that before preparing the final seniority list, in May 1988 objections were invited from the concerned officials within 10 days of the issue of the circular, with clear stipulation that in absence of any objections raised within the stipulated period, the seniority list will be treated as final and that since the petitioner had not raised any objection, it was finalized thereafter. Qua claim of the petitioner that other non -teaching employees promoted as Assistants were given the benefits of ad -hoc service in counting their service period, it is clarified that they had been appointed on regular basis without any rider or conditions attached to their appointment, which was not the case of the petitioner, as he was required to qualify the written examination as also the typing test. In short, the University had claimed that the petitioner had correctly been placed in the seniority list according to the Rules of the University. Prayer for dismissal of the petition was made. Since, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent -University in this petition and the matter is of 1992, instead of adjourning the case for the appearance of the counsel for respondent - University, it is considered appropriate to dispose of the matter after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner.