IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 884 of 2007 ------- -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.27498/2005 Dated 26/03/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. MUNESH K.G., APPILAZHIKAM, P.O.CHANDANATHOPE, KOLLAM - 691 014. 2. JAINAMMA P.K., VETTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHANNANIKKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. JAYARAM J, JAYABHAVAN, KUMANNOOR, KIDANGOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. 4. SMT. SOJY SUSAN KURIAN, NARAYANA SADANAM, S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM - 6. 5. SMT. P.V.GEETHAKUMARI, MALLICHIRAYIL, P.O.MARIATHURUTH, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN RESPONDENT(S) //RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686562, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686562. 3. THE SYNDICATE OF THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, P.D.HILLS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. - 2 - WA.No. 884 of 2007 4. SHRI. M.P.DILEEP KUMAR, CLERICAL ASSISTANT, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, P.D.HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686562. 5. SHRI. P.I.ASHARAF, DO. DO. 6. SMT. T.D.RAJAMMA, DO. DO. 7. SMT. V.K.KAMALAKSHI, DO. DO. 8. SATHEESH KUMAR T.R., S/O A.G.. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, THALAPPALAM, PLASSANAL P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - PIN.686579. 9. ANITHAMMA K.K., W/O K.S.ASOKAN, AGED 33 YEARS, KALAYIL, PUTHUPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN.686 011. 10. JOSE GEORGE, ASSISTANT GRADE II, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 11. JOB T.G., ASSISTANT GR.II, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 12. K.M.THOMAS, ASSISTANT GR.II, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. R.1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY R4 TO R7 BY ADV. SRI.N.SUGATHAN FOR R10 TO R 12 BY ADV. SRI.SRI.JAJU BABU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.884 of 2007 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 6th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioners are the appellants. They were appointed in the M.G. University as Laboratory Assistants by Ext.P1 series orders, in 1996 and 1997. Respondents 4 to 7 are Class IV employees. As per the University Statutes, their next promotion post in the direct line is Clerical Assistant. Thereafter, they can seek promotion as Assistant Gr.II, Assistant Gr.I. etc. The Syndicate of the University on 28.3.1993 took a decision that 50% of the posts of Laboratory Assistants shall be filled up by promotion of last grade servants. In implementation of that decision, respondents 4 to 7 were appointed as Laboratory Assistants on 4.12.1997. The said respondents have a case that, in fact they opted for promotion as Clerical Assistant, but, in the absence of vacancies, they W.A. No.884 of 2007: - 2 - were considered for promotion as Laboratory Assistant. 2. While so, the competent authority of the University published Ext.P4 seniority list of Laboratory Assistants in which the appellants were shown as seniors and the respondents 4 to 7 were juniors. Though respondents 4 to 7 were juniors, they were considered for promotion as Clerical Assistant and thereafter, for promotion as Assistant Gr.II. The appellants felt that they are also entitled to get the benefits which were extended to their juniors. Therefore, they preferred Ext.P5 representation dated 19.9.2001 praying that, they may be considered for promotion as Assistant Gr.II. This Court directed the University to consider their claim. Pursuant to the said direction, by Ext.P6 order Ext.P5 representation was rejected. Challenging Ext.P6, the appellants again moved this court and this court by Ext.P7 directed the University to re-consider the matter. The Syndicate of the University re-considered the matter and issued Ext.P10 order. The said order reads as follows: “As per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, the Syndicate considered the W.A. No.884 of 2007: - 3 - entire matter and hearing report in detail, and resolved the following: 1. To treat the direct recruitee Laboratory Assistants as a separate category and to grant them time bound/ratio promotion as has been done to other technical categories of employees, since they are recruited as Class III officials in the technical category of employees with specific technical qualifications. 2. To cancel the seniority list prepared by combining the directly recruited Laboratory Assistants and those promoted as Laboratory Assistants and to prepare a separate seniority list for the direct recruitee Laboratory Assistants. 3. To designate the Laboratory Assistants promoted from the common seniority list as Clerical Assistants w.e.f. the date of their promotion as Laboratory Assistants considering the fact that both the posts carry identical scale of pay and that the promotees are included in the common seniority list of Last Grade Servants (Grade II). 4. To reckon the service put in by eligible promotees from the common seniority list of Class IV employees as Laboratory Assistants/Clerical Assistants as qualifying W.A. No.884 of 2007: - 4 - service for promotion as Assistant Grade II. 5. To authorise the Vice Chancellor to dispose of the pending cases of promotion as Laboratory Assistants/Clerical Assistants/ Assistants Grade II in the common seniority list in conformity with the decision of the Syndicate.”. Challenging the above order, the writ petition was filed. 3. According to the appellants, they are entitled to get all the benefits given to the juniors in the cadre of Laboratory Assistants. The promotee Laboratory Assistants have been confirmed in that post and they have merged into the group of Laboratory Assistant. Therefore, in the matter of posting as Clerical Assistant and promotion as Assistant Gr.II, there cannot be any discrimination, it was contended. The University filed a counter affidavit supporting the impugned order. The party respondents also filed a counter affidavit supporting Ext.P10. Learned Single Judge after hearing both sides held that, as per the existing rules, the writ petitioners, who are Laboratory Assistants, cannot be considered for posting as Clerical Assistants or for promotion as Assistant Gr.II. Based on the above finding, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal by the aggrieved writ petitioners. W.A. No.884 of 2007: - 5 - 4. Though it is elementary, it is to be restated, that where there is a right there is a remedy. Rights flow from statute, custom or contract. In this case, the appellants can claim posting as Clerical Assistant or promotion as Assistant Gr.II if only they are in the feeder category for appointment for those posts as per the relevant statute prescribing the qualifications and method of appointment. The appellants do not have any such case. They admit that, there are no provisions in the Statute enabling them to get posting as Clerical Assistant or to get promotion as Assistant Gr.II. They raise the above claim only based on the fact that, promotee Laboratory Assistants were granted that benefit. Class IV employees have two channels of promotion. One is in the direct line of promotion as Clerical Assistant and thereafter as Assistant Gr.II, etc. They have a second lateral channel to go to the post of Laboratory Assistant. A Class IV employee who is posted as Laboratory Assistant retains his lien in Class IV category and so,he is entitled to get all promotions in the direct line of promotion. The respondents 4 to 7 would assert that they were never confirmed in the post of Laboratory Assistant W.A. No.884 of 2007: - 6 - and therefore, they are entitled to be considered or promotion in the vertical line, according to their turn. We are of the view that, even if they were confirmed, the appointing authority can modify that confirmation and can revive their lien in the post of Class IV employee, so that they can claim promotion in the vertical channel. The appellants who were appointed in the Class III Grade in the Technical Wing cannot be said to be aggrieved by the said decision. They have no locus standi to challenge the promotions granted to respondents 4 to 7. Only the Class IV employees who were remaining in that category, waiting for promotion as Clerical Assistant, alone are, if at all, the persons aggrieved. So, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition rightly. In the result, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- C.T. Ravikumar, Judge. DK. (True copy)