HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.4528 of 2000 ORDER: Petitioners, three in number, question the action of the 1st respondent in reducing the promotional avenues of the Laboratory Attendants to 20% from 50% for promotion to the next higher post of Junior Laboratory Assistants, as illegal, arbitrary and for a direction to the 1st respondent to promote them as Junior Laboratory Assistants from the date of completion of five years of service in the cadre of Laboratory Attendants calculating the promotional avenues of Junior Laboratory Assistants as 50% with retrospective effect, and to declare the proceedings dated 24.8.1999, whereby the designation of the 3rd respondent was changed from Junior Office Assistant-cum-Typist to Junior Laboratory Assistant, as arbitrary and illegal. During the course of hearing Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine the reliefs (a) and (b) and it would suffice if this Court were to adjudicate relief (c) in as much as the petitioners have all been subsequently promoted as Junior Laboratory Assistants. Facts, in brief, are that the 1st petitioner was appointed as a Laboratory Attendant on 1.6.1988, the 2nd petitioner was appointed to the said post on 11.8.1989 and the 3rd petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Attendant on 5.9.1989. The petitioners continued to work as Laboratory Attendants ever since their appointment. It is not in dispute that the feeder post, for promotion to the post of Junior Laboratory Assistant, is the post of Laboratory Attendants in which posts the petitioners were working. The 3rd respondent was appointed as a Daftari in 1977. He was later appointed as a Junior Office Assistant on adhoc basis vide proceedings dated 23.6.1993 on condition that he would qualify himself in the typing test within six months from the date of his appointment failing which he would be reverted as Daftari. The 3rd respondent was redesignated as Office Attendant Vide proceedings dated 9.7.1993. It is the case of the petitioners herein that the post of Junior Office Assistant-cum-Typist and Junior Laboratory Assistant are distinct both in the nature of the duties to be discharged and services to be rendered in the said posts; while the post of Laboratory attendants is the feeder post for promotion to the post of Junior Laboratory Assistant, the 3rd respondent was not even entitled to be appointed as Junior Laboratory Assistant by direct recruitment as he did not possess the requisite qualifications prescribed for appointment to the said post. The petitioners would express their grievance against the 2nd respondent who was then acting as the Vice-Chancellor, and the Dean of the School of Physics. In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the 3rd respondent was appointed as a Junior Office Assistant since he had completed 10 years of service and possessed S.S.C. qualification; a similar benefit was given to eight others similarly situated with effect from 14.6.1993; his services were utilized in the laboratory though he was appointed as a Junior Office Assistant; based on his repeated representations for conversion from the post of Junior Office Assistant to the post of Junior Laboratory Assistant, and on the basis of his plea that he was carrying on duties in the laboratory ever since his appointment in 1977 even though he was appointed in the administrative cadre, the respondent had converted the post of Junior Office Assistant on the basis of the work assigned to him; and, based on the recommendations of the Committee, his post of Junior Office Assistant was upgraded to that of Junior Laboratory Assistant. The respondent would further state that the interests of the petitioners were not affected as the cadre strength had not been changed and they would also have the same opportunity of being promoted to the higher post of Junior Laboratory Assistants as was available prior to the re-designation of the 3rd respondent. Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would contend that, since promotion to the post of Junior Laboratory Assistant is from the cadre of Laboratory Attendants in which post the petitioners were working, it is only they, along with the other Laboratory Attendants, who were entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Laboratory Assistant; the 3rd respondent could not be brought in as Junior Laboratory Assistant as he was holding a post on the administrative side as a Junior Office Assistant; and, as the promotional avenues of the 3rd respondent was in the administrative cadre, he was not entitled to be promoted, much less, upgraded, as a Junior Laboratory Assistant before the petitioners were so appointed. Admittedly the 3rd respondent was initially appointed as Daftari. He was later designated as Junior Office Assistant-cum- Typist and, thereafter, re-designated as Junior Office Assistant. While he joined the service of the respondent before the petitioners were appointed, the fact remains that he was not borne in the cadre of Laboratory Attendants from which cadre alone were persons entitled to be promoted as Junior Laboratory Assistants. The action of the respondents in re-designating the 3rd respondent, a Junior Office Assistant, as a Junior Laboratory Assistant, thereby depriving the petitioners of being promoted to the said post of Junior Laboratory Assistants before the 3rd respondent, is patently arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However the petitioners have subsequently been promoted as Junior Laboratory Assistants. I see no reason, therefore, to now set aside the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Junior Laboratory Assistant. The respondent – University shall, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, rearrange the seniority list of Junior Laboratory Assistants and place the petitioners, and others who were seniors to them in the cadre of Laboratory Attendants, above the 3rd respondent in the cadre of Junior Laboratory Assistants. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. However, in the circumstances, without costs. __________ 26-8-2010 asp