Madras High Court
The Thanjai Tamil University vs The Secretary To Government on 1 February, 2018
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.02.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD) No.4156 of 2008
and
M.P(MD)No.2 of 2008
1.The Thanjai Tamil University,
SC/ST Paniyalar Sangam,
represented by its President
Tanjore.
2.M.Murugesan,
23, Poonachi Illam,
sivaji Nagar,
Second Street,
Thanajvur ? 613 001.
... Petitioners
-vs-
1.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Higher Education,
Fort.St.George,
Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Tamil and Culture Development,
Fort St.George,
Chennai ? 600 009.
3.The Vice-Chancellor,
Tamil University,
Tanjore.
4.The Tamil University,
Tanjavur,
represented by its Registrar,
Tamil University. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to fill the 30
SC/ST backlog vacancies in the fourth respondent/University in non-teaching
posts through special drive.
!For Petitioner : M/s.S.Arunachalam
For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthu
1 and 2 Addl. Government Pleader
For Respondent-3 : Mr.R.Subramanian
For Respondent-4 : M/s.T.Sakthikumaran
:ORDER
The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is for a direction to the the respondents to fill the 30 SC/ST backlog vacancies in the fourth respondent/University in non-teaching posts, through special drive.
2.The Writ Petitioners are Thanjai Tamil University SC/ST Paniyalargal Sangam, represented by its President and Thiru M.Murugesan, President of the above said Sangam. The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners states that the Writ Petition is filed on behalf of the Sangam as well as on personal capacity of the President Thiru.M.Murugesan. The petitioners claim that the backlog vacancies numbering 30 reserved for SC/ST categories had not been filled up. A direction is sought for to fill up all these backlog vacancies. The Writ Petition provides various details in relation to the number of backlog vacancies not filled up during the relevant point of time. Further, it is not stated, who are all the members of the first Petitioner/Sangam and whether the members of the first Petitioner/Sangam are eligible for seeking appointment in respect of backlog vacancies. This apart, the list of members had not been enclosed in the typed-set of papers. The Writ Petitioner had submitted the details regarding the backlog vacancies and other particulars. However, nowhere, the legal rights are established.
3.The learned counsel for the fourth respondent/University relying on the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent has stated that the fourth respondent/University is fully depending upon the grant provided by the State Government through the second respondent and for filling up of the vacancies based on the required man-power. The University is getting the permission of the second respondent-Government so as to get appropriate financial grant from the Government. The University Syndicate has passed various resolutions to fill up the backlog vacancies in the year 1995,1996 and based on the Government Orders issued in 1996 and 1997, the University sent proposals to the Government from 2002 to fill up various vacant posts, but the same were not considered due financial crisis in the University. Subsequently, the Government has sanctioned a special bail out grant and then appointments were made and the said backlog vacancies were filled up from the posts approved to be filled up by the second respondent by promotion from the lower cadre, by direct recruitment and by conversion of posts as agreed in the negotiated settlement made on as per the details furnished below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
Number of backlog vacancies S. No. Category Reported in Munshi Committee Report As stated in the affidavit Filled up by the Univer-
sity Remarks
1. Office Assistant 6 (4-3) 1 5
1.Vellaiammal
2.Vedhanayagi
3.Shanmugam
4.Premkumar
5.Kandasamy (One post downgraded as Sweeper)
2. Watchman 1 Head Watch man 1 1 No sanctioned post of Head Watchman. Pitchaimuthu appointed as Watchman
3. Gardener 1 1 1
1.Rathina-valli
4. Canteen Asst.
1Cooking Asst.
2Post converted as Sweeper and Mohan Vishalakshi appointed
5. Asst.Camera Man 1
-
-
No Vacancy
6. Machine Minder 1 1
-
No Vacancy
7. Deputy Plate Maker 1 1
-
No Vacancy
8. Plumber 1 1 1 Converted as Office Assistant and filled up
9. Technical Assistant 2 2 2
1.Dhanuskodi
2.Gobinath
10. Typist 1 1 1 S.C. candidate appointed has resigned
11. Junior Asst.
5 5 61.Five direct appointment and one promotion.
2.One post notified under Backlog vacancy on 04.08.2017.
12. Assistant 5 5 5 By Promotion
13. Suuperinten-dent 2 2 1
1.Kalavathy-
(Promoted under out of turn)
2.Vacant
14. Driver 1
-
1Kamban appointed
15. Librarian Gr-I 1 1 Single cadre and Academic Post - No Reservation
16. Asst. Librarian 1 1 1 Single cadre and Academic Post - No Reservation
17. Maintenance Asst.(Electrical) 1 1
-
Vacant - to be filled up.
18. Warden
-
1-
No sanctioned post of Warden. A teacher appointed would be Warden of the Hostel on Honorarium for short tenure.
19. Cook
-
1-
University suo motu notified to fill up Backlog vacancy on 04.08.2017.
20. Programmer
-
1-
21. Asst. Registrar
-
2-
Promotion Post Total 32 30 27 a. The perusal of the above statement shows that (1) the posts of Librarian and Asst. Librarian are Academic posts and single cadre posts and hence, they do not come under Non-teaching staff category and also does not come under Reservation.
(2) The petitioner has included four categories of posts (Item No.18 to 21) which are not found as backlog vacancies in the Munshi Committee report.
(3) Though back-log vacancy does not apply to promotion post (Asst. Registrar), the petitioner included the said Promotion Post as a backlog vacancy. In this regard, it is submitted that the post of Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar are purely promotion posts, as a good gesture and as a one time relief, the University agreed to fill up one post each in Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar from SC/SC candidates as agreed in the proceedings of the Reservation Committee meeting held on 23.12.2005, by these posts could not be filled up for want of suitable candidates as per norms though notifications were issued on 13.05.2006, 14.06.2006 and 15.11.2006 and later the post of Deputy Registrar was filled up by Mr.G.Panneerselvam.
(4) Though the cadre of Cook has been brought under backlog vacancy, the University notified for the same as this category has two posts.
b. It is further submitted that three posts under three categories (item 5 to 7) have been stated to be Backlog vacancies in the Munshi Committee Report, they could not be filled up now, due to non existence of vacancies in the said posts and the same would be filled up whenever vacancy arises in these categories.
c. It is submitted that the University has filled up the backlog vacancies to the most possible extent.
Therefore, the allegations made that the back-log vacancies have not been filled up is false and devoid of merit.
10. As for the allegations made in para -20 to 26, it is humbly submitted that the respondent - University did not wantonly denied or delayed the filling up of backlog vacancies. As stated supra, the University has filled up the vacancies only after getting orders of the Government for the same, since release of additional funds by the Govt. is necessary to meet out the expenditure arising out of the appointments made and hence, the University has taken various steps and filled up the backlog vacancies. Even now, based on the Govt. Letter No.14585/Tha.Va.2-1/2015-1 dated 17.11.2015 granting permission to fill 33 posts (out of 50 posts proposed for filling up) and sanctioning additional expenditure of Rs.43,91,400/- per annum, the University has issued the notification dated 04.08.2017 to fill up one post of Junior Assistant and one post of Cook under backlog vacancy and the selection process is going on and the recruitment will be completed soon. Therefore, the allegation of arbitrariness on the University and violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution are baseless and false and liable to be rejected as devoid of merit."
4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 also says that backlog vacancies were filled up by the Government and granted necessary sanctions to the fourth respondent/University. Thus the relief sought for in respect of filling up of the back-log vacancies were already completed. If there are some posts, that will be filled up in accordance with the recruitment rules in force.
5.This Court is of an opinion that appointment or promotion can never be claimed as a matter of right. All the appointments and promotions are to be granted only in accordance with the rules in force. In case, appointments are made directly, the process of selection has to be conducted by providing equal opportunity to all the eligible persons. The Writ Petitioner being a Sangam, cannot have any right to seek directions to fill up the posts. Filling up of the posts is an administrative prerogative of an employer and no employee or a welfare association of the employees have no authority to claim that particular posts or all the posts should be filled up. The administrative policies are to be decided by the employer and the Sangam being the welfare association has got limited right of protecting the interest of the employees and in relation to the administrative acts, it is for the employer to take policy decision and fill up all the necessary posts considering the public interest involved.
6.In the present Writ petition, the Writ Petitioner/Sangam has filed the present Writ Petition for a direction to fill up the backlog vacancies. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 brought to the notice of this Court that backlog vacancies were already filled up and after filing of the Writ Petition, process of selection was completed and posts were filled up. The posts may fall vacant on account of various reasons namely, retirement, death, Voluntary retirement from service etc. However, in respect of filling up of the posts, it is a policy decision to be taken by the competent authority and it will not form part and parcel of the service rights ensured under the service regulations as applicable to the employees. Thus, this Court has to construe that the members of the Petitioners/Sangam has no legal right to ask for a direction that the backlog vacancies must be filled by the respondents. Their rights will accrue only if a panel for promotion is prepared and if the names of all the eligible persons are not considered. In other words, when the process of selection is undertaken, all the eligible persons will be considered in accordance with law. Consideration is a fundamental right of an employee. Promotion can never be claimed as a matter of right. This being the legal principle, this Court is of an opinion that in respect of filling up of posts, administrative decision is to be taken by the competent authorities and thereafter, process of selection shall be commenced. Thus the relief as such sought for cannot be granted and it is for the respondents to decide these administrative necessities and to take a decision in accordance with the rules considering various other aspects and in the interest of public. In this view of the matter, no further adjudication is required in this Writ Petition.
7.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To
1.The Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, Fort.St.George, Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The Secretary to Government, Department of Tamil and Culture Development, Fort St.George, Chennai ? 600 009.
3.The Vice-Chancellor, Tamil University, Tanjore.
4.The Registrar, Tamil University, Tanjavur.
.