Venukumar M.S. Vs. State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE4H DAY OF DECEMBER201413TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 WP(C).No.20008 of 2012 (A) PETITIONERS:

1. VENUKUMAR M.S,AGED43YEARS, S/O.N.SANKARAN,MARUTHANKATTIL HOUSE, KAROOR P.O.,PALA,KOTTYAM DISTRICT,PIN-686575 (ROMEO OPERATOR,M.G.UNIVERSITY,KOTTAYAM) 2. BABY EMMANUEL,EDATHANAL HOUSE,KURIANADU P.O., VIA.MONIPPALLY,KOTTAYAM,PIN-686636. (ROMEO OPERATOR,M.G.UNIVERSITY,KOTTAYAM) BY SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA) (SENIOR ADVOCATE.) ADVS.SRI.N.RAYNOLD FERNANDEZ SRI.MANU GEORGE KURUVILLA SMT.RINU JOSE SRI.AMAL GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.

2. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,PD HILLS,KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,PIN-686560.

3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PD HILLS,KOTTAYAM,PIN-686560.

4. THE SYNDICATE OF THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,PD HILLS,KOTTAYAM, PIN-686560. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SUNITHA VINOD. R2 TO R4 BY SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE (SENIOR ADVOCATE.) ADVS.SRI.VARGHESE M.EASO,SC,M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J.,SC,M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2711.2014 ALONG WITH W.P(C) NO.9069/2012, AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON0412-2014, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: pk W.P(C) NO.20008/2012 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT.P1:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE

ISSUED BY THE MAHATMAGANDHI UNIVERSITY DATED218.1990. EXT.P2:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE

ISSUED BY THE MAHATMAGANDHI UNIVERSITY DATED45.1993. EXT.P3:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE

IN O.P.NO.16264/94 DATED112.1997. EXT.P4:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT AS PER G.O.(P) 56/02/GAD DATED183.2002. EXT.P5:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE G.O(P) NO.279/03/GAD DATED179.2003. EXT.P6:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SYNDICATE DATED146.2004. EXT.P7:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE STATUTORY FINANCE COMMITTEE DATED306.2005. EXT.P8:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE3D RESPONDENT DATED244.2006. EXT.P9:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RE-DEPLOYMENT

S OF RONEO OPERATORS ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY DATED24.2005. EXT.P10:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR DATED1311.2006. EXT.P11:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE

OF THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY DATED59.2007. EXT.P12:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE

DATED1212.2008. EXT.P13:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF G.O.(MS)31/06/GAD DATED251.2006. EXT.P14:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE

ISSUED BY THE UNIVERTSITY OF KERALA DATED137.2005. EXT.P15:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE

DATED1010.2005 GRANTED TO SHRI.K.SASIKUMAR ISSUED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY DATED1010.2005. EXT.P16:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE

IN W.P(C)1318/2009, DATED14.2011. EXT.P17:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE3D RESPONDENT DATED137.2011. pto W.P(C) NO.20008/2012 EXT.P18:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE

ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY DATED147.2011. EXT.P19:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE

ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY DATED258.2011. EXT.P20:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTE TO THE SYNDICATE PREPARED BY THE REGISTRAR DATED2810.2011. EXT.P21:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE

PASSED BY THE UNIVERSITY DATED193.2012. EXT.P22:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF CLASS IV EMPLOYEES DATED99.97. EXT.P23:THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE1T PETITIONER. EXT.P24:THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED229.2011 WITH ANNEXURE. EXT.P25:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED177.2009. EXT.P26:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE

DATED81.2010. EXT.P27:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE

DATED181.2010. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a):TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVETSITY

U.O NO.568/A III/1/2012/ADMN.DATED32.2012. EXT.R2(b):TRUE COPY OF SL.NO.29 35-51 IN THE KERALA UNIVERSITY ORDINANCE,1978, CHAPTER XVII-SCHEDULE. EXT.R2(c):TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY

NO.AIII/1/417/93 DATED45.1993. EXT.R2(d):TRUE COPY OF

IN OP NO.16264/1994 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.R2(e):TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY

NO.249/A III/1/2007/ADMN.DATED214.2007. EXT.R2(f):TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT

G.O.(MS)NO.31/06/GAD DATED251.2006. EXT.R2(g):TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT

G.O(MS) NO.196/2010/GAD DATED175.2010. EXT.R2(h):TRUE COPY OF

DATED14.2011 IN W.P(C) NO.1318/2009 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. pto W.P(C) NO.20008/2012 EXT.R2(i):TRUE COPY OF UNIVERSITY

NO.2411/A III/2007/ADMN. DATED211.2007. EXT.R2(j):TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF PAY REVISION VIDE GO(P) NO.86/2011 FIN DATED262.2011. EXT.R2(k):TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.AD.A2/1-685/04 DATED1311.2006. EXT.R2(l):TRUE COPY OF UNIVERSITY

NO.AD-A1-1-62/2007 DATED112.2007. EXT.R2(m):TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.AD-A1-1-42/2010 DATED1911/2010 ISSUED BY MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY. EXT.R2(n):TRUE COPY OF UNIVERSITY

NO.1866/A1/2009/ADMN. DATED304.2009. EXT.R2(o):TRUE COPY OF UNIVERSITY

NO.1020/A1/2010/ADMN. DATED242.2010. EXT.R2(p):TRUE COPY OF LEGAL NOTICE DATED212.2011 ISSUED BY DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM. EXT.R2(q):TRUE COPY OF

IN WA842007 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.R2(r):TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY SHRI.KOHN K.J.

DATED22.2007 TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR,M.G.UNIVERSITY. EXT.R2(s):TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY SHRI.KOHN K.J, DATED207.2007 TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR,M.G.UNIVERSITY. EXT.R2(t):TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SYNDICATE HELD ON2010.2009 (6.44TH) ITEM NO.117/6.44/6745. EXT.R2(u):TRUE COPY OF UNIVERSITY

NO.240/A1/010/ADMN. DATED81.2010. EXT.R2(v):TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY SHRI.DILIP K.R,CLERICAL ASSISTANT TO THE REGISTRAR,MG UNIVERSITY DATED244.2007. EXT.R2(w):TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SYNDICATE MEETING ITEM NO.46/6.46/6939 HELD ON2412.2009. EXT.R2(x):TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED2210.2009 BY SHRI.DILIP K.R TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR,MG UNIVERSITY. EXT.R2(y):TRUE COPY OF UNIVERSITY

NO.406/A1/210/ADMN. DATED181.2010. EXT.R2(z):TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED92.2012 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT FOR FIXATION OF PAY. pto W.P(C) NO.20008/2012 EXT.R2(aa):TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF 2009 PAY REVISION

GRANTING TIME BOUND HIGHER GRADE PROMOTIONS. //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE pk A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 W.P.(C).No.20550 of 2012 W.P.(C).No.19254 of 2012 & W.P.(C).No.9069 of 2012 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December, 2014

JUDGMENT

As common issues arise in these writ petitions, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment.

2. The primary issue that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is with regard to the service conditions of Roneo Operators working under the Mahatma Gandhi University. An incidental issue that arises is whether, on account of the steps taken by the Mahatma Gandhi University for providing promotional avenues to Roneo Operators, the promotional prospects of clerical assistants working under the University are in any way affected. W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 & W.P.(C).No.20550 of 2012: The petitioners in these writ petitions were appointed as Roneo Operators in the Mahatma Gandhi University. The post of Roneo Operators was initially created by the University as per order dated 25.02.1988. Thereafter, by subsequent orders the W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 & Con.cases 2 number of posts was increased and currently the strength of Roneo Operators in the University is stated to be 11. As the Mahatma Gandhi University has not framed any Statute or Ordinance of its own in terms of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, the Statutes/Ordinances made under the Kerala University Act, and which were in force as on 02.10.1983, were made applicable to the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, until such time as they were replaced by the Statutes/Ordinances be made by the Mahatma Gandhi University. This situation came into being by virtue of Section 99 (2) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act. As per the Kerala University 1st Ordinances, 1978, there is no post of Roneo Operator in the schedule to the said Ordinance. The equivalent post in the said schedule is the post of Duplicator Operator, the method of recruitment to which is shown as direct recruitment or by promotion from those in service. The post of Clerical Assistant is one that is mentioned in the schedule and the method of recruitment is by competitive test and/or interview or by promotion from the cadre of last grade servants. While the minimum qualifications stipulated for a Duplicator Operator is only an ability to read and write, the minimum qualification for the post of Clerical Assistant is a pass in SSLC examination which can be relaxed in the case of those in service. It would appear that the Roneo Operators W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 & Con.cases 3 working under the Mahatma Gandhi University had taken up the matter for parity in treatment with Duplicator Operators under the Kerala University but no steps were taken by the Mahatma Gandhi University to redress the grievance of the Roneo Operators. The Roneo Operators thereafter preferred a representation before the University seeking the inclusion of the post of Roneo Operators in the feeder category to the post of Clerical Assistant, or in the alternative, to treat them at par with Clerical Assistants and extend them further promotions as Assistants, Selection Grade Assistants etc., based on the qualifications possessed by them. The grievance of the petitioners was redressed to a limited extent by the Mahatma Gandhi University by enhancing the pay scale of Roneo Operators so as to make it at par with that of Duplicator Operator in the Kerala University. As their grievances were not fully redressed, and they were not recognised in the regular line of promotions to any higher posts, the petitioners approached this Court through W.P.(C).No.1318 of 2009 which was disposed by Ext.P16 judgment dated 01.04.2011, wherein this Court directed the respondent University to consider taking measures for rectifying the anomaly that existed in the case of Roneo Operators. It was also suggested that the Roneo Operators be included in the feeder category to the post of Assistant Grade -II so as to rectify the said anomaly. The W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 & Con.cases 4 operative portion of the said judgment reads as follows: "4. It is not disputed before me that the Mahatma Gandhi University has not yet framed their own First Ordinances and they are still following the Kerala University First Ordinances, in respect of qualifications and methods of appointments of employees of the University, as it stood on 2nd October, 1983. From the said Ordinances, it is clear that Class IV employees whose basic qualification is ability to read and write can aspire for promotion to the post of Clerical Assistant and the persons who were promoted as Clerical Assistants and who have the minimum qualification of SSLC can be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade -II insofar as the qualifications prescribed for that post is a University degree but relaxable in the case of Clerical Assistants who have acquired SSLC or equivalent qualification. Therefore, it is clear that a person having minimum qualification of SSLC if gets appointed as a Class IV employee and then gets promoted as Clerical Assistant can aspire for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade II. On the other hand, although the qualification prescribed for the post of Roneo Operator is also ability to read and write and experience in operating Roneo machines, they are included in the Class -III category of employees equivalent to the post of Clerical Assistant. But, even if they have the minimum qualification of SSLC, they cannot aspire for promotion as Assistant Grade II, like Clerical Assistants, since Roneo Operator is not a feeder category for that post. There is another anomaly in the matter also. There are no Roneo machines in vogue now. As such, the petitioners are also working as Clerical Assistants on work arrangement. As such, out of the two persons working alongside in the same post, the Class IV employee who got promoted as W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 & Con.cases 5 Clerical assistant can aspire for promotion if he has SSLC as Assistant Grade II, whereas the other person who was originally recruited as Roneo Operator and doing the same work as the other man, cannot aspire for such promotion, even if he has the minimum qualification of SSLC. I see it not only as an anomaly but also a great injustice, which requires to be remedied or rectified accordingly. I am of opinion that the University should address themselves to this patent anomaly and injustice meted out to Roneo Operators who presently do the same work as that of Clerical Assistant. I am of opinion that since Roneo Operators are a vanishing category, it may not be difficult for the University to find out a just solution for this injustice, by including them also in the feeder category for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade II" 2. Subsequent to the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the Syndicate of the Mahatma Gandhi University which met on 14.07.2011 found that insofar as it had, at its meeting on 16.04.2007, resolved to dispense with the practice of promoting those who did not possess the basic qualification of a University degree as Assistants, there was no anomaly that subsisted between Roneo Operators and Clerical Assistants with regard to their future promotion prospects. In arriving at this finding, the Syndicate was also guided by the fact that, by another decision dated 21.04.2007, it had already decided to set apart 2% of the post of Assistant Grade -II for appointment from among Clerical Assistants and W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 & Con.cases 6 Roneo Operators who possessed a degree qualification. The prescribed 2% was subsequently enhanced to 4% with effect from 17.05.2010. Under these circumstances, although the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.1318 of 2009 had directed the respondent University to take steps to rectify the anomaly that was noticed, the respondent University found that the anomaly subsisting between the Clerical Assistants who possessed degree qualification and similarly placed Roneo Operators who possessed degree Qualification had been partly redressed by providing both these categories of employees a chance of promotion to the post of Assistants Grade -II against the quota earmarked for them. As regards the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012, by Ext.P21 order dated 19.03.2012, the respondent University acted upon the suggestion of the Vice Chancellor and accommodated the petitioners as Store Assistants to two posts that were created for the purpose by re-designating two posts of Garden Maistry which remained unfilled in the University. Thus, by virtue of the order dated 19.03.2012, the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 came to be appointed as Store Assistants. As far as the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.20550 of 2012 are concerned, the only redressal of their grievance was through an order dated 03.03.2012 whereby the Syndicate of the University resolved to create ex-cadre post of W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 & Con.cases 7 Assistants through up-gradation of the post of Roneo Operators and also through the order promoting the petitioners in W.P.(C). No.20008 of 2012 as Store Assistants wherein it was clarified that future promotions to the said posts of Store Assistants would be on seniority basis in the ratio of 1:1 between Clerical Assistants and Roneo Operators who possessed only SSLC qualification. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners have sought for the further relief of declaring that they are entitled to be considered for further promotion as Assistants and Selection Grade Assistants along with Clerical Assistants in the service of the University.

3. I have heard sri.George Thomas Mevada, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri.Varghese M.Easo the learned Standing counsel for the respondent University.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent University a reference is made to Ext.R2(a) order dated 03.02.2012 whereby the respondent University has clarified that the newly created post of Store Assistants would, in future be promotion posts for Roneo Operators and Clerical Assistants who possessed SSLC qualification and would be filled in the ratio of 1:1 on the basis of W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 & Con.cases 8 seniority. It is also pointed out with reference to Ext.R2(e) decision of the Syndicate dated 21.04.2007, that in respect of Roneo Operators who possessed the qualification of a University degree, they had already been treated at par with Clerical Assistants who possessed University degree and 4% of the posts in the category of Assistant Grade II had been set apart for appointment from among Clerical Assistants and Roneo Operators who possessed the degree qualification. In paragraph 16 and 22 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent University, the stand of the University with regard to the aforesaid aspects is made clear through the following averments :

"6. Allegations in para 13 are denied. In the judgment in W.P.(C).No.1318 of 2009 (Exhibit R2(g)) this Hon'ble Court is of the opinion that 'since the Roneo Operators are a vanishing category, it may not be difficult for the university to find out a just solution for this injustice, by including them also in the feeder category for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade II'. Qualified Roneo Operators who possess a University Degree are already considered for promotion as Assistant Grade II under the transfer by appointment scheme. Copy of Ad-A1-1- 62/2007 dated 1.12.2007 and Ad.A1.1- 42/2010 dated 19.11.2010 are produced herewith and marked as Exhibits R2(1) and (m) respectively. Accordingly, two Roneo Operators viz. Shri.Rajesh Kumar K.T. and Shri.Manoj Mathew (who were graduates) were promoted as Assistants vide U.O.No.1866/A1/2009/Admn. Dated 30/04/2009 and U.O.No.1020/A1/2010/Admn. W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 & Con.cases 9 Dated 24.02.2010 and the true copies of the above orders are produced and marked as Exhibits R2(n) and Exhibit R2(o) respectively. The opportunity for promotion remains open for the low paid employees including the petitioners on acquiring a University Degree. Since the petitioners were not qualified for promotion as Assistants, they were promoted as Store Assistants vide U.O.No.568/A III/1/2012/Admn. Dated 3.2.2012 with a basic qualification of SSLC, to comply with the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court and also to redress the anomaly, if any. Moreover, the pay scale of Store assistant Post is enhanced to the scale of pay of Assistants (Exhibit R2). According to the University, there are no anomalies in respect of the post and service of Roneo Operators as observed in the writ petition."

"2. With regard to para 21, the allegations are not true or correct and hence denied. It may be noted that the petitioners assumed the charge of Store Assistants and have requested for fixation of pay in the new post. True copy of the application dt.9.2.2012 for fixation of pay by the petitioners are produced and marked as Exhibit R2(z). It is interesting to note that they have not lodged any complaint to the University on the promotions sanctioned. It is ordered that in future, the Store Assistant post will be promotion post of Roneo Operators and Clerical Assistants on seniority basis. For the purpose of granting such promotion, there is no need of integration of a technical and non- technical category of employees. This can be done considering the cadre seniority in 1:1 ratio" W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 & Con.cases 10 5. It will be seen therefore that pursuant to Ext.P16 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.1318 of 2009, the Syndicate of the respondent University which met on 19.03.2012, noted that by Ext.R2(e) resolution dated 21.04.2007, 2% of the post of Assistant Grade II had been set apart for appointment by transfer from among Clerical Assistants and Roneo Operators who possessed degree qualification. The prescribed percentage of posts that were set apart was subsequently enhanced to 4% with effect from 17.05.2010. Through this mechanism the respondent University essentially provided for a promotional avenue for those Roneo Operators who possessed degree qualification by placing them in the feeder category to the posts of Assistant Grade -II in the quota earmarked for promotion from among Clerical Assistants and Roneo Operators. As regards the Roneo Operators who did not possess degree qualification and had only SSLC qualification, the respondent University by Ext.P21 order dated 19.03.2012 accommodated the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 to newly created posts of Store Assistant and further clarified that the said posts of Store Assistants would be available for future promotions on seniority basis in the ratio of 1:1 between Clerical Assistants and Roneo Operators who have only SSLC qualification. The counter affidavit of the respondent University also makes it W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 & Con.cases 11 clear that while determining the seniority of Clerical Assistants and Roneo Operators and considering them for promotion to the post of Store Assistants in the ratio of 1:1, there would not be an integration of the cadres of Clerical Assistants and Roneo Operators and the seniority of the candidate in the respective cadres alone would be considered.

6. Taking note of the steps taken by the respondent University, I am of the view that the respondent University has already provided promotional avenues for Roneo Operators under its service. Avenues have been provided, both for those Roneo Operators who possess a degree qualification, as also those who possess only SSLC qualification. It is now for the University to amend their ordinances or create new ex-cadre posts so as to provide promotional avenues for Roneo Operators to posts above that of Store Assistants. This is an exercise that would have to be done by the respondent University after assessing the number of years of service remaining for the Roneo Operators working in the University and considering the fact that they are a vanishing category of employees. The decision to be taken by the respondent University, being in the realm of policy, it would not be appropriate for this Court to issue any directions to the respondent University W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 & Con.cases 12 with regard to the manner in which amendments have to be effected to their Ordinance or the manner in which posts have to be created to provide for promotional avenues to its employees. I find that insofar as the University has already taken steps pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 01.04.2011 in W.P.(C).No.1318 of 2009 to redress the grievances of the petitioners in these writ petitions, the prayer for a declaration, to the effect that they are entitled to be considered for further promotion as Assistants and Selection Grade Assistants at par with Clerical Assistants in the service of the University, cannot be granted. Resultantly, the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. W.P.(C).No.9069 of 2012: The petitioners in this writ petition were recruited as last grade servants under the Mahatma Gandhi University and thereafter, promoted as a Clerical Assistant on 12.12.2007 and 24.04.2010 respectively. As per the Kerala University 1st Ordinance, that has been adopted by the Mahatma Gandhi University, the next promotion post for the petitioners is the post of Assistant Grade -II where the qualification required is a University W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 & Con.cases 13 degree. The petitioners are persons who do not possess a University degree. In the writ petition, they are aggrieved by the appointment offered to the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 as Store Assistants, by re-designating two posts of Garden Maistry. It is the contention of the petitioners that the post of Garden Maistry cannot be re-designated as Store Assistant. The petitioners also apprehend that the creation of promotional avenues, by the Mahatma Gandhi University, for Roneo Operators to the post of Assistant Grade -II would adversely affect their promotional prospects to the said posts. In that regard, they are aggrieved by Ext.P3 decision of the Syndicate of the University which indicates that steps have been initiated to upgrade the post of those Roneo Operators working under the University, who have only SSLC qualification, to ex-cadre post of Assistants for all purposes. It is the specific case of the petitioners in the writ petition that the persons appointed as Roneo Operators under the Mahatma Gandhi University do not hold a sanctioned post in the University and such persons holding ex-cadre posts cannot have a right of promotion to any posts in the regular stream, and further, that promotions can be effected only in accordance with the Ordinances framed by the University. W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 & Con.cases 14 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent University wherein the stand taken is that the Roneo Operators appointed as Store Assistants were appointed to posts that were created by re-designating post of Garden Maistry. It is pointed out that the post of Roneo Operator and Garden Maistry are technical in nature and two vacant posts of Garden Maistry were re-designated as Store Assistants after enhancing the scale of pay from 9190-15780 to 13900-24040 with SSLC qualification. It is further pointed out that future promotions to the post of Store Assistant will be on seniority basis, in the ratio of 1:1 between Clerical Assistants and Roneo Operators who have only SSLC qualification. It is also made clear by the respondent University that there will be no integration of the cadres of Roneo Operators and Clerical Assistants for the purposes of promotion to the post of Store Assistant and that the seniority will be determined only in the respective cadres, and the promotion effected by applying the 1:1 ratio. As regards Ext.P3 resolution of the Syndicate of the University, it is clarified by the respondent University that the attempt of the University was only to create ex-cadre posts of Assistants through up-gradation of the posts of Roneo Operators.

3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 & Con.cases 15 case as also the submissions of Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the writ petition and Sri.Varghese M.Easo, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent University, I find that the petitioners are really not affected by the steps taken by the respondent University to provide promotional avenues to Roneo Operators, as also by the proposals of the respondent university to create ex-cadre posts of Assistants through up-gradation of the posts of Roneo Operators. While the appointment of the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 as Store Assistants was done by creating two posts of Store Assistants, by re-designating the posts of Garden Maistry, it was clarified by the respondent University that future appointments to the posts of Store Assistants will be only on seniority basis, in the ratio of 1:1, between Clerical Assistants and Roneo Operators who have only SSLC qualification. As it has been clarified by the University that while effecting the promotions by applying the 1:1 ratio between Clerical Assistants and Roneo Operators having SSLC qualification, there will be no integration of the two cadres, it follows that petitioners cannot have any apprehension that the promotional avenues created for Roneo Operators will in any way adversely affect their chances of promotion to the posts of Store Assistant in the quota earmarked for them. This is because the W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 & Con.cases 16 Roneo Operators with SSLC qualification can aspire for the posts of Store Assistant only against the quota earmarked for them and not through the quota earmarked for Clerical Assistants with SSLC qualification. That apart, the petitioner's apprehensions with regard to the proposal of the Syndicate of the respondent University, to upgrade the posts of Roneo Operators to ex-cadre posts of Assistants, are also unfounded. It is clear from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent University that the proposal is to create ex-cadre posts of Assistants to which posts the Roneo Operators would be upgraded. The very fact that the up-gradation is to ex-cadre posts would indicate that it will not affect the promotional prospects of Clerical Assistants in the regular stream of promotion to the sanctioned posts under the respondent University. Thus, in any event the apprehension of the petitioners, with regard to the steps taken by the respondent University adversely affecting their promotional prospects, is wholly unfounded and cannot be the basis of a challenge against the said steps/proposals in a writ petition preferred by them. It is also relevant to note that the decision of the respondent University to consider Roneo Operators along with Clerical Assistants to the 4% posts of Assistant Grade -II, that were set apart for appointment from among Clerical Assistants/Roneo Operators with degree W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 & Con.cases 17 qualifications, has not been impugned by the petitioners in the present writ petition. Thus, in any view of the matter, I do not think the petitioners are in any manner adversely affected by the proposals of the respondent University to provide promotional avenues for Roneo Operators. Resultantly, the writ petition in its challenge against Exts.P2 and P3 decisions fails and is accordingly dismissed. W.P.(C).No.19254 of 2012: The petitioner in this writ petition joined as a Class IV employee under the Mahatma Gandhi University on 08.05.1992. He was later promoted as Clerical Assistant on 09.12.1997. Since he obtained his SSLC qualification only in the year 2007, he completed five years as a qualified Clerical Assistant only in March 2012. On account of the decision of the respondent University to insist on a degree qualification for further promotions of qualified Clerical Assistants to the post of Assistant Grade-II, with effect from 16.04.2007, the petitioner was not given a relaxation from the requirement of possessing degree qualification for promotion to the posts of Assistant Grade-II. In the writ petition, the petitioner challenges Exts.P2 and P10 orders to the extent they deny W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 & Con.cases 18 promotion to the petitioner to the posts of Assistant/Store Keeper. The specific contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that his juniors in the cadre of Clerical Assistant, who did not have degree qualification, have been promoted as Assistant Grade -II even after 16.04.2007. It is his case, therefore, that he ought to have been treated at par with the said persons for the purposes of promotion to the post of Assistant Grade -II. In the alternative, it is his case that he should be treated at par with the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 who, as Roneo Operators, were promoted as Store Assistants to posts that were created by a re- designating posts of Garden Maistries.

2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent University, the specific contention of the petitioner with regard to the promotions of his juniors as Assistant Grade -II has been answered in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit as follows: "5. Regarding para 4 of the writ petition it is submitted that, the final common seniority list of Class IV employees, No.Ad.A.III/1/9064/95/Admn. Dated 9/9/1997 is prepared to facilitate promotion of class IV employees to the post of Clerical Assistant. Only the service of unskilled lab Assistants who were promoted from the post of Peon was considered as qualifying service for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade II W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 & Con.cases 19 before 16/4/2007 ie., the date by which the practice was discontinued. The promoted Lab Assistants Posts and Clerical Assistants posts have the same scale of pay and considered identical posts for promotion as Assistant Grade II before 16/4/2007. The practice was to promote SSLC qualified Clerical assistants, who have put in a service of 5 years in the post of Clerical Assistant as Assistant Grade II (to the 2% of the Assistants Grade posts reserved for such promotions). M/s.James Y.Antony M.J and Jaffer Sadik K.A had acquired the qualification for promotion before the cut off date of 16/4/2007 and promoted as Assistant Grade -II when the vacancy arose. Eventhough Sri.Dileep Kumar M.P. And Smt.Rajamma T.D had also acquired qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade II, it was delayed due to a Writ Appeal No.884 of 2007 in the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. The petitioner qualified SSLC with Reg.No,803550/March 2007 and the period of service put in by him as unqualified Clerical Assistant cannot be considered as qualifying service for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade II by the rule which was applicable then. Had he acquired the qualification and completed five years as qualified Clerical Assistant before 16.4.2007, he would have been naturally considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade II. Mahatma Gandhi University decided to conduct an eligibility test for Clerical Assistants for promotion as Assistant Grade II as in the University of Kerala. Later on considering that almost all the works related to examination are computerized, and also the declining quality of service due to the promotion of under qualified persons as Assistants, the Syndicate at its meetings held on 02.04.2007 W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 & Con.cases 20 and 16.04.2007 vide item No.53/6.12/3903, decided to discontinue the practice of promoting under qualified persons to the post of Assistant Grade II and also decided not to implement the decision regarding the conduct of eligibility test for Clerical assistants for promotion as Assistant Grade II. True copy of University Order U.O.No.249/A III/2007/Admn. dt. 21.04.2007 is produced and marked as Exhibit R1(a). This was essential for up keeping and maintaining the quality of service as to secure the interest of student community. The University has every right to follow its own procedures to maintain the quality of its service irrespective of the decisions of other Universities in Kerala including the University of Kerala. Moreover, the Government while implementing pay revision of 2004 in Universities, as per G.O. (P) No.3/08/H.Edn. Dated 05.01.2008 have directed to stop the practice of promoting under qualified persons as Assistant Grade II, by strictly adhering to the Secretariat pattern of services in the Universities. True copy of G.O.(P) No.3/08/H.Edn. Dated 05.01.2008 is produced and marked as Exhibit R1(b)." 3. It will be seen from the above that the denial of promotion to the petitioner, to the posts of Assistant Grade -II was only for the reason that, by the time the petitioner obtained his SSLC qualification and, thereafter, five years experience as a qualified Clerical Assistant, the respondent University had taken a decision to discontinue the practice of offering a relaxation from the requirement of possessing a University degree for the purposes of W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 & Con.cases 21 promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-II. The petitioner cannot obviously aspire for a promotion that he is not entitled to as per the rules in force. That apart, the respondent University had made it clear to the petitioner that he would be considered based on his seniority in the cadre of Clerical Assistants to the posts of Store Keeper against the quota earmarked for SSLC qualified Clerical Assistants. The petitioner has however since retired from service on 31.10.2014.

4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned Senior counsel Sri.Jaiju Babu, appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also Sri.Varghese M. Easo, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent University, I am of the view that the decision of the respondent University to deny promotion to the petitioner to the posts of Assistant Grade -II cannot be found fault with considering the fact that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification of a University degree for the purposes of getting the said promotion. The petitioner cannot also contend that he should be treated at par with the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 for consideration to the posts of Store Assistant that were created by re-designating two posts of Garden Maistry because those promotions were effected based on the W.P.(C).No.20008 of 2012 & Con.cases 22 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.1318 of 2009, and taking into account the peculiar problems faced by Roneo Operators under the respondent University. The only claim that could be urged by the petitioner was for consideration to the posts of Store Assistant that was proposed to be filled up from among Clerical Assistants and Roneo Operators possessing SSLC qualification based on seniority in the cadre of Clerical Assistants and against the quota earmarked for Clerical Assistants for promotion to the post of Store Assistant. In view of the fact that the petitioner has retired on 31.10.2014, the said benefit could not be availed by him. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the prayers in the writ petition cannot be granted to the petitioner. Resultantly, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Thus, W.P.(C).Nos.20008/2012, 20550/2012, 19254/2012 & 9069/2012 are all dismissed but without any order as to costs. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns