Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was made to work in the capacity of Workshop Instructor in three places viz., Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Polytechnic College, Yanam from 15.6.1998 to 14.01.2000, Women's Polytechnic College, Puducherry, from 15.1.2000 to 25.7.2003, and thereafter, from 26.7.2003 to 14.11.2007, she was transferred to Karaikal Polytechnic College, Karaikal. After working in the places mentioned above, she was again transferred to Women's Polytechnic College, Puducherry, on 15.11.2007, as Workshop Instructor. While she was working in the said place, the present impugned order came to be passed. The case of the petitioner is that he is entitled to get promotion to the post of Foreman, since the Workshop Instructor post is feeder category to the promotional post.

4. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed three submissions. Firstly, when the petitioner was working as Workshop Instructor that is a different feeder category to the promotional post of Foreman, he was transferred to the post of Lab Assistant by the impugned order that too, when the post of Lab Assistant is not the same cadre as that of the Workshop Instructor. Secondly, when the Recruitment Rules states that the post of Workshop Instructor and Lab Assistant are different by merely passing a resolution without getting it rectified by the Government, the respondents cannot say that the post of Workshop Instructor and Lab Assistant are one and the same and force the petitioner to go and work as Lab Assistant. Thirdly, it was contended that when the Government till date has not approved the proposals made by the third respondent, grouping both the posts viz., Workshop Instructor and Lab Assistant as one category and preparing a common seniority list, without getting it rectified by the Government, the impugned order transferring the petitioner as Workshop Instructor to the post of Lab Assistant is nullity in law and is also legally un-sustainable. On that basis, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the post of Workshop Instructor and Lab Assistant are not belonging to different category, for the reason that the Government, by way of a policy decision has already decided to merge both the posts viz., Workshop Instructor and Lab Assistant as one post for all purposes, including fixation of seniority, ordering transfers etc., Even in the year 2001, when the PIPMATE has prepared one common seniority list for both the posts viz., Workshop Instructor and Lab Assistant, even in the said common seniority list, the name of the petitioner who was initially recruited as Workshop Instructor was assigned with seniority No.1. But the petitioner does not challenge the said common seniority list on any ground, muchless on the grounds raised by her now for the first time in the present Writ Petition. Thus, when the petitioner has accepted the common seniority list already in the year 2001, it is not open to the petitioner now to say that the post of Lab Assistant is different from that of the Workshop Instructor post. The learned counsel for the respondents also stated that both the posts are carrying the same scale of pay viz., Rs.1400-2600.

7. In fact, the counter filed by the respondents also shows that the petitioner, though has been transferred to the post of Lab Assistant, which is equal to the post of Workshop Instructor, she is going to be utilized as Workshop Instructor only in future. Therefore, though the petitioner is transferred to the post of Lab Assistant, since she is going to be utilized in the post of Workshop Instructor, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner.

8. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. No costs.