Disposed

Venukumar M.S. and Anothers v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC1 Apr 2011WP(C)/1318/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, Roneo Operators at Mahatma Gandhi University, approached the Court alleging that despite performing Clerical Assistant duties, they lack promotion avenues while equivalent Class IV employees have a path to Assistant Grade II. The Court found this an anomaly and injustice.

What did the court decide?

Directing the University to consider rectifying the anomaly by including Roneo Operators in the feeder category for promotion to Assistant Grade II within four months.

Venukumar M.S. and Anothers Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2011 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 1318 of 2009(F)

PETITIONER(S):

VENUKUMAR.M.S,AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.N.SANKARAN, MARUTHANKATTIL HOUSE,KAROOR.P.O, PALA, KOTTAYAM DIST. (WORKING AS RONEO OPERATOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,KOTTAYAM).

¶10

BABY IMMANUEL,EDATHANAL HOUSE, KARIYANADU.P.O,VIA MONIPPALLY,KOTTAYAM. (WORKING AS RONEO OPERATOR,MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,KOTTAYAM.

¶11

BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,KOTTAYAM.

¶16

THE VICE CHANCELLOR,THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,KOTTAYAM.

¶17

THE SYNDICATE OF THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,REP; BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR,THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,KOTTAYAM.

¶18

ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY FOR 2 TO 4 GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2011, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 1318/2009.

¶21

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER OF 1ST PETITIONER.

¶22

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY M.G. UNVERSITY DT. 4.5.1993.

¶23

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO. 16263/94 DT. 11.2.1997.

¶24

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF AMENDMENT MADE BY GOVERNMENT AS PER G.O.(P) 56/02/GAD DT. 18.3.2002

¶25

EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO. 279/03/GAD DT. 17-9-1993.

¶26

EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF SYDICATE DT. 14.6.2004.

¶27

EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF STATUTORY FINANCE COMMITTEE DT. 30-6-2005.

¶28

EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF SYNDICATE DT. 5.4.2006.

¶29

EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE R3.

¶30

EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF RE-DEPLOYMENT ORDERS OF RONEO OPERATORS ISSUED BY M.G. UNIVERSITY DT. 2.4.2005.

¶31

EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF REGISTRAR DT. 13.11.2006..

¶32

EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF M.G. UNIVERSITY DT. 5.9.2007.

¶33

EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 32833/06 DT. 29.9.2008.

¶34

EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF R2 DT. 12.2.2008.

¶35

EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) 31/06/GAD DT. 25.1.2006.

¶36

EXT.P16 TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DT. 13.7.2005.

¶37

EXT.P17 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DT. 10.10.2005.

¶38

EXT.P18 TRUE COPY OF LETER ISSUED BY M.G. UNIVERSITY DT. 23.4.1990.

¶39

EXT.P19 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DT. 27.9.1978 ISSUED BY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.

¶40

EXT.P20 TRUE COPY OF M.G. UNIVERSITY ORDER DT. 4.5.1993.

¶41

EXT.P21 TRUE COPY OF ITEM 1333 PRESENTED BEFORE THE SYNDICATE OF M.G. UNIVERSITY.

¶42

EXT.P22 TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY M.G. UNIVERSITY DT. 30.4.2001.

¶43

EXT.P23 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION OBTAINED BYO PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DT. 26.5.2007.

¶44

EXT.P24 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DT. 17.7.2009 ISSUED BY M.G. UNIVERSITY.

¶45

EXT.P25 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT. 31.5.2006 ISSUED BY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, M.G. UNIVERSITY.

[TRUE COPY]

P.S TO JUDGE.

S. Siri Jagan, J.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶50

W.P(C) No. 1318 of 2009

¶51

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶52

Dated this, the 1^st day of April, 2011.

¶53

J U D G M E N T

¶54

The petitioners are Roneo Operators in the Mahatma Gandhi University, the 2^nd respondent herein, having entered service as such on 17.8.1990 and 17.3.1993 respectively. Originally, Roneo Operators were included as Class IV employees. Later on, their scale of pay was made equivalent to that of Class III employees. But, they do not have any promotion avenues. According to them, in Government service and University of Kerala whose first ordinances have been adopted by the 2^nd respondent-University as it stood on the date of adoption, Roneo Operators on becoming Clerical Assistants by promotion, can aspire for further promotion to Assistant Grade II, which benefit is not available to Roneo Operators in the 2^nd respondent-University. Therefore, according to them, they should also be considered either for promotion to the post of Clerical Assistant or treated as Clerical Assistants so that they can also aspire for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade II, which is the promotion post for Clerical Assistant in the 2^nd respondent-University also, provided they have the qualifications prescribed for the same in the Ordinances. They would further submit that as of now, there is no difference between Roneo Operators and Clerical Assistants insofar as there are no Roneo machines to be operated by the petitioners and the petitioners are actually performing the duties of clerical Assistants, on work arrangement. They also have passed SSLC, which is the minimum qualification prescribed for Clerical Assistants for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade II. But, the representations filed by the petitioners in this regard, which were directed to be considered as per the judgment of this Court, were

¶55

W.P(C) No. 1318 of 2009 -: 2 :-

¶56

ultimately rejected by Exts.P11, P12 and P14 orders of the University, which, according to the petitioners, do not give any reasons for such rejection, especially when demonstrably there is injustice in the matter insofar as the petitioners working as Clerical Assistants have no avenues for promotion, whereas Clerical Assistants who have been promoted from Class IV categories are eligible for consideration for such promotion, provided they have the minimum qualification of SSLC. The petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs:

¶57

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Exts.P11, P12 and P14 orders issued by the Mahatma Gandhi University;

¶58

ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Mahatma Gandhi University to implement Exts.P4 and P5 orders issued by the Government and further direct to promote the petitioners as Assistant Grade II considering the service seniority of the petitioners;

¶59

iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to reconsider their decision with respect to the promotion of Roneo Operators in the Mahatma Gandhi University in view of Exts.P15 and P16 orders issued by the Government and the University of Kerala.”

¶60

The University has filed a counter affidavit, wherein they would take the stand that there is no question of considering Roneo Operators for promotion to the post of Clerical Assistant insofar as Roneo Operators are in Class III category along with Clerical Assistants having the same scale of pay. While admitting that Roneo Operators do not have any promotion avenue, the University would contend that the petitioners have received two grade promotions within a span of 15 years and therefore they cannot complain about any

¶61

W.P(C) No. 1318 of 2009 -: 3 :-

¶62

stagnation in their career, because of want of promotion avenues.

¶63

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

¶64

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 2^nd 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

¶65

W.P(C) No. 1318 of 2009 -: 4 :-

¶66

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 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.

¶67

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider as to how this patent anomaly and injustice can be remedied. The 2^nd respondent shall consider the matter and take a final decision on the same rectifying the said patent anomaly and injustice, notwithstanding the impugned orders as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶68

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

¶69

Tds/

Venukumar M.S. and Anothers v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venukumar M.S. and Anothers v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Appukuttan Pillai Vs Sri. Muhammed Huwaiz & Ors.

Baby Nappally Vs Dr.K.T.Ramani

Thajniza B. & Another Vs Niveditha P.Haran & Others

Ajithakumari T.P. Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Mammen Alexander and Others Vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Daisy John Kitho Vs State of Kerala and Others