The Hindu : Tamil Nadu / Chennai News : Varsity told to consider claim for promotion

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Jun 27, 2011
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu - Chennai

Varsity told to consider claim for promotion

K.T. Sangameswaran

“12 other similarly placed persons have been promoted”
“It is beyond doubt that the petitioner was discriminated”

CHENNAI: A widow with a degree, B.LIS, M.LIS and M.Phil (Library and Information Science) qualification, who has been languishing as Attender in the University of Madras for 15 years, has got relief with the Madras High Court directing the university to consider her claim for promotion as Assistant with all benefits from August 2002, within a month.

This is because 12 other similarly placed persons have been promoted, the court said.

Unreasonable

Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar, allowing a petition filed by the woman, observed that facts revealed that the university's action was unreasonable. P. Dhanajeyam submitted that her husband, who was an Assistant Section Officer in the university, died while in service in 1995. She had passed PUC and typewriting higher grade in English and Tamil and shorthand lower grade in English, and was appointed on compassionate grounds in August 1996.

She was assured of a promotion if she obtained a degree and obtained the B.A. degree in History in 1998 and, later, B.LIS, M.LIS, PG Diploma in Computer Applications and M.Phil in LIS. She submitted representations seeking promotion.

Her regular promotion as Assistant was also not given even though similarly appointed persons were promoted by waiving necessary qualifications.

She prayed for a direction to the authorities to quash a university resolution of August last year by which she had to attend a written test, and promote her as Assistant.

Mr. Justice Paul Vasanthakumar observed that the file produced by the university contained a list of 12 persons who had been promoted without a written test. Admittedly, the petitioner had completed six years service as Attender on August 4, 2002, as required for promotion.

It was beyond doubt that the petitioner was discriminated while giving promotion to 12 similarly placed persons as Assistant even though they did not have the prescribed computer qualification and time was granted to them to get themselves in computer course within one year.

The petitioner had passed PG Diploma in Computer Applications in 2005. Three persons who had completed six years of service alone in August 2002 had been given promotion. However, the petitioner had not been promoted. This was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Tamil Nadu