V. Rajesh v. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady; Mahatma Gandhi University; The State of Kerala; and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN** **FRIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933** **WP(C).No. 14631 of 2006(P)** **----------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** - **-----------------------** **V. RAJESH, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY, NOW WORKING AS ASSISTANT GRADE II IN MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.N.SUGATHAN, SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR.** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------------------** **1. SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.** **2. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILL, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.** **3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **4. H. MOHAMMED HARIS, SELECTION GRADE ASSISTANT, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY, ERNAKULAM.** **5. ANANTHAKUMAR P.G., SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, DO. DO.** ## *** ADDL. R6 TO R53 IMPLEADED** **6. GOPIN G., SELECTION GRADE ASSISTANT, REGIONAL OFFICE, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, PANMANA, KOLLAM.** **WP(C).No. 14631 of 2006(P)** **7. SUKESH K.DIVAKAR, SEL. GRADE ASSISTANT, REGIONAL CENTRE, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM.** **8. VIPIN K.R., KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, RANNY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 672.** **9. SAKKIR P.B., SEL. GRADE ASSISTANT, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY, ERNAKULAM.** **10. VEENA BEN, PUSHPAVILASOM, CHEMMAKAD P.O., PERINAD, KOLLAM-691 603.** **11. SRIKANT S., SEL. GRADE ASSISTANT, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY, ERNAKULAM.** **12. SREEJA M., -DO- -DO-.** **13. SREEKUMAR M.P., D-O- -DO-.** **14. SALIL ROSH T.S., SEL. GRADE ASSISTANT, REGIONAL CENTRE, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **15. SUJITH S., SEL. GRADE ASSISTANT, REGIONAL CENTRE, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE.** **16. SATHEESH KUMAR C., SEL. GRADE ASSISTANT, REGIONAL CENTRE, SRE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR.** **17. SHEENA M.R., SEL. GRADE ASSISTANT, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY, ERNAKULAM.** **18. RACHEL P.D.., -DO- -DO-.** **19. PREMAN THARAVATTATH, SEL. GRADE ASSISTANT, REGIONAL CENTRE, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR.** **20. TARA JANE PAUL, SEL. GRADE ASSISTANT, ON DEPUTATION TO CHALACHITRA ACADEMY, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **21. KALA N., SEL. GRADE ASSISTANT, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY, ERNAKULAM.** **WP(C).No. 14631 of 2006(P)** **22. SANJAY P.S., SEL. GRADE ASSISTANT, ON DEPUTATION TO TAYYAL THOZHILALI KSHEMANIDHI BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **23. ARUN C.V., SEL. GRADE ASSISTANT, REGIONAL CENTRE, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **24. SHAJI KUMAR D., SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, REGIONAL CENTRE, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **25. BIJU P., SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, ON DEPUTATION, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPN., HEAD OFFICE, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **26. SHAMLA K.A., SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY, ERNAKULAM.** **27. BINY SEBASTIAN, ASSISTANT GRADE II, M.G. UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM.** **28. ABHILASH KRISHNAN, ASST. GRADE II, ON DEPUTATION , DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - ****29. JAMES S.J., SRAMBICAL HOUSE, PILIYANAM P.O., ANGAMALY-687 573. **(DELETED)** **30. JYOTHISH P.M., SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY, ERNAKULAM.** **31. REJI KAMALA SUKUMARAN, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY, ERNAKULAM.** **32. SANTHOSH KUMAR R., SINDHU NIVAS, KADUVAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR-683 543.** **33. ANITH I.DAVID, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY, ERNAKULAM.** **34. LEKSHMI K., ASSISTANT GRADE II, M.G. UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM.** **WP(C).No. 14631 of 2006(P)** ## **35. SUSEENDRAN K., EDAILETHARA, AMBALATHUMBAGOM, PORUVAZHY, KOLLAM-690 520.** **36. AJITHA B.S., SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY, ERNAKULAM.** **37. PRASAD T.S., -DO- -DO-.** **38. ASHIQ A.HAQ, -DO- -DO-.** **39. SURESH M.S., ASSISTANT GRADE I, ON DEPUTATION, DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **40. DEEPA J.R., ASSISTANT, KERALA BUILDING & OTHER CONSTRUCTIONS WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM.** **41. VIJOJ D.VIJAYAN, ASSISTANT GRADE II, M.G. UNIVERSITY, AD.B.I. SECTION, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM.** **42. RAGI VARGHESE, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY, ERNAKULAM.** **43. SINDHU V.K., -DO- -DO-.** **44. AJITH N., PUTHEN VEEDU, MOOKAMBI WEST, N. PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM.** **45. SANDHYA K., SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY, ERNAKULAM.** **46. ANILKUMAR P.M., SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, REGIONAL CENTRE, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR.** **47. OTHAYOTH SUNILKUMAR, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY, ERNAKULAM.** **48. AHAMEDKUTTY P.P., ASSISTANT GRADE I, REGIONAL CENTRE, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM.** **WP(C).No. 14631 of 2006(P)** **49. PADMINI C.S., ASSISTANT GRADE I, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY, ERNAKULAM.** **50. SREELEKHA V.G., ASSISTANT GRADE II, M.G. UNIVERSITY, EG.VI SECTION, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM.** **51. BINOD VISWAM, ASSISTANT GRADE I, REGIONAL CENTRE, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, THURAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA.** **52. SAJEEV P., ASSISTANT GRADE I, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY, ERNAKULAM.** **53. DINESH T., LECTURER, NEHRU ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE, PADNAKKAD P.O., KASARAGODE.** ## *** IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17/10/2006 IN I.A. NO.14302/2006.** ****R29 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 01/03/2007 IN I.A.3041/2007.** **R1 BY SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SC, SANSKRIT UTY. SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN,SC,SANSKRIT UTY. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN,SC,SANKARACHA.UTY SRI.P.S.NISHIL,SC,SREE SANKARACHARYA UT SRI.T.B.HOOD** **R2 BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY.** **R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW. R4 BY ADV. MR.P.C. SASIDHARAN.** **R5 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.** **R12,R17,R21,R26, R33,R36,R40,R42,R43 & R49 BY ADV.SMT.K.R.KRISHNAKUMARI, SMT.PREETHI K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, SRI.CHRISTUDAS STEPHENSON, SMT.C.B.ANUROOPA,** **SRI.P.S.DIVAKARAN. R4, R7, R11, R13, R15, R37, R47 & R51 BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs** ## **WP(C)NO.14631/2006** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **P1 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.B/4006/2000/SSUS-(28) DATED 21/8/2000 OF 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/10/02 WITH THE FINAL GRADATION LIST OF ASSISTANT GRADE II AS ON 01/7/2002.** - **P3 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SYNDICATE MEETING HELD ON 18/1/03.** - **P4 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.B/2003/SSUS DATED 13/8/2003.** - **P5 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.B/2003/SSUS DATED 01/7/2004.** - **P5(A) COPY OF THE ERRATUM DATED 13/7/2004 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P6 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.B/1246/SSUS/02 DATED 9/3/2005.** - **P7 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.AI 1-13/2005 DATED 27/6/2005 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **P8 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.B/03/SSUS DATED 7/4/2006 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** - **R1(A) COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(P)NO.968/87/FIN DATED 17/11/1987.** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.S.TO.JUDGE** **RS** S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 14631 of 2006 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 2[nd] day of December, 2011. ## J U D G M E N T The petitioner was originally recruited as Assistant Grade II in the 1[st] respondent-University in the year 2000. Ext.P1 is the appointment order dated 21.8.2000. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner joined service of the 1[st] respondent-University on 31.8.2000 as Assistant Grade II. He passed the obligatory departmental tests in December 2002. Ext.P2 gradation list for Assistants Grade II was published on 29.10.2002. While so, by Ext.P3 order dated 18.1.2003, the University decided to create four different grades of Assistants, viz. Assistant Grade II, Assistant Grade I, Senior Grade Assistant and Section Grade Assistant in the ratio 1:1:1:1. As per the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Statutes, 1997, the post of Assistant Gr. I is to be filled up by promotion of Assistant Grade II who have completed the period of probation and passed account test lower, based on seniority or by deputation. The post of Senior Grade Assistant is to be filled up by promotion of Assistant Grade I based on seniority or by deputation. The post of Selection Grade Assistant is to be filled up by promotion of Senior Grade Assistant based on seniority or by deputation. 2. Pursuant to the creation of the posts, by Ext.P4 order dated 13.8.2003, 17 Assistants Grade II were promoted as Assistants Grade I with effect from 1.7.2002, 15 Assistants Grade I were promoted as Senior Grade Assistants with effect from 1.7.2003 and 16 Senior Grade Assistants were promoted as W.P(C) No. 14631 of 2006 -: 2 :- Selection Grade Assistants with effect from 1.7.2003. In that order, the petitioner is sl. no. 2 among the persons promoted as Assistants Grade I with effect from 1.7.2003. Subsequently, by Ext.P5 dated 1.7.2004, 15 Senior Grade Assistants were promoted as Selection Grade Assistants with effect from 1.7.2004 and 16 Assistants Grade I were promoted as Senior Grade Assistants. In that order, the petitioner was promoted as Senior Grade Assistant with effect from 26.3.2004. Subsequently, by Ext.P5(a) dated 13.7.2004, the date of promotion of the petitioner was corrected as 1.7.2004. 3. While so, the petitioner got inter-university transfer to the Mahatma Gandhi University by Ext.P6 order dated 9.3.2005. Consequent to the inter-university transfer, the petitioner joined the M.G. University as Assistant Gr. II but with pay protection, meaning thereby that the petitioner's pay in the post of Senior Grade Assistant was protected in the M.G. University, although he joined as the junior-most Assistant Grade II. Pursuant thereto, by Ext.P7, the M.G. University fixed the scale of pay of the petitioner on par with what he was drawing in the post of Senior Grade Assistant in the 1[st] respondent University . While so, one Sri. Ananda Kumar P.G, one of the Assistants in the 1[st] respondent-University filed a representation against Ext.P5 order. The University considered the said representation and passed Ext.P8 order dated 7.4.2006 revising the dates of promotion assigned in Exts. P4 and P5 orders of W.P(C) No. 14631 of 2006 -: 3 :- promotion. As per the same, 16 Assistants Grade II were directly promoted as Selection Grade Assistants with effect from 1.7.2002, 17 Assistants Grade II were promoted as Selection Grade Assistants with effect from 1.7.2002 and 18 Assistants Grade II were promoted as Assistants Grade I. The petitioner was the last among them and was promoted as Assistant Grade I with effect from 22.1.2003. Consequently, sl. nos. 19 to 51 in Ext.P8, who were junior to the petitioner in Exts. P4 and P5, were given dates of promotion much ahead of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner's pay in the 1[st] respondent-University came to be reduced to that of Assistant Grade I. In accordance with the reduction in pay, the petitioner's pay in the M.G. University was also reduced correspondingly. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: - “i. to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P8 order; - ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order declaring that Exts. P4 and P5 promotions orders passed by the University are valid and legal and are not liable to be revised s ordered in Ext.P8.” 4. The petitioner's contention is that Ext.P8 came to be passed by the University on a mistaken interpretation of Rule 28 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, which have been made applicable to employees of the W.P(C) No. 14631 of 2006 -: 4 :- University by the Statutes. The reasoning in Ext.P8 is that all the four grades of assistants are in the category of assistants and the duties and responsibilities attached to all the four grades are one and the same. Therefore, by virtue of Rule 28(e) of the K.S and S.S.R, person promoted from Assistant Grade II to Assistant Grade I is not required to undergo probation in the post of Assistants Grade I before becoming eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Grade and so on. But, while passing Ext.P8 order on that basis, the University lost sight of the proviso to Rule 28(a)(ii), which provides that the holder of the post in any service for which no probation has been prescribed, he shall not be eligible for promotion unless he has put in satisfactory service in that post for a period of one year on duty within a continuous period of two years. In view of the said proviso, a person who is promoted as Assistant Grade I from Assistant Grade II will have to necessarily complete one year of satisfactory service in the post of Assistant Grade I before becoming eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Grade and so on. The petitioner would contend that this position of law has been declared by a Division Bench of this Court in **State of Kerala v. Suchithra,** 2009(3) KLT 132, which has been followed by a learned single Judge of this Court in **Divakaran v. State of Kerala** , 2010 (2) KLT 832. According to the petitioner, in the above circumstances, Ext.P8 is liable to be quashed and the position as per Exts. P4 and P5 are liable to be restored. W.P(C) No. 14631 of 2006 -: 5 :- 5. The University as well as the additional respondents impleaded, who would be affected by any orders in this writ petition in favour of the petitioner, have filed counter affidavits seeking to controvert the contentions of the petitioner. 6. The University would contend that the Assistants in the service of the University in various gradaes form a single cadre post . Probation is insisted only in the cadre of Assistant Grade II. Therefore, the University, on the basis of legal opinion received, decided that one year service in a post need not be insisted upon for promotion to the next higher grade. This is all the more so in view of Rule 28(e) of the K.S and S.S.R. is their stand. The University would contend that the decision in **Suchithra's case** (supra) requires re-consideration. According to the learned counsel for the University , the Division Bench has wrongly read the proviso to Rule 28(a)(ii). Learned counsel would contend that the proviso has to be read as applicable to a service for which no probation has been prescribed. According to him, insofar as period of probation is prescribed for University service, the proviso is not applicable. He would therefore contend that this Court should refer the matter to the Division Bench for re-consideration of the decision in **Suchithra's case.** 7. Counsel for the individual respondents would raise two contentions. The first is that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge Ext.P8 order since the petitioner is no W.P(C) No. 14631 of 2006 -: 6 :- longer an employee of the 1[st] respondent-University insofar as he has got transfer to the M.G. University at the time of passing of Ext.P8 order. He would further submit that the petitioner has an alternate remedy as provided under the statute. 8. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 9. Obviously, the issue is squarely covered by the decision in **Suchithra's case** (supra) rendered by a Division Bench of this Court. Of course, that is in respect of service in the Government Secretariat, but on identical situation where also there are four grades of assistants and promotions are from Grade II to Grade I, Grade I to Senior Grade and Senior Grade to Selection Grade exactly identical to the service in the 1[st] respondent-University. Therefore, only if I hold either that decision is not applicable to the facts of this case or I agree with the counsel for the University that it has been wrongly decided, the question of reference to the Division Bench arises, even if it is tune with judicial propriety for me to doubt the correctness of a Division Bench decision. 10. Rule 28(a)(ii) of K.S & S.S.R reads thus: ## “ **28(a) Promotion** :- (i) xx xx xx (ii) Where the Special Rules for a service provide for appointment by promotion to any class or category from a specified class or category of such service, no member shall be eligible for such appointment unless he is a full member or an approved probationer in the class or W.P(C) No. 14631 of 2006 -: 7 :- category so specified: Provided that if he is the holder of a post in any service for which no probation has been prescribed, he shall not be eligible for promotion unless he has put in satisfactory service in that post for a period of one year on duty within a continuous period of two years. **==> picture [231 x 11] intentionally omitted <==** (Underlining supplied) According to the counsel for the University, that proviso is not applicable in this case and what is applicable is only Rule 28(e). Rule 28(e) reads thus: “( **e) Probation where there are more than one grade to the same category:** - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Special Rules, where there are more than one grade to the same category and duties and responsibilities attached to the various grades are one and the same, and appointment to the higher grades are made by promotion from the lower grades then probation shall be insisted only in the lowest grade to such category.” The contention is that there is only one post of Assistant and the others are only grades of the same post. Therefore, Rule 28(e) alone is applicable, especially since in the proviso to Rule 28(a)(ii) what is contemplated is 'service for which no probation has been prescribed'. I do not agree with both the propositions put forward by the counsel for the University. The various posts in the non-teaching service in the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit is enumerated in the schedule to the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Statutes, 1997. Serial Nos. 10, 11, W.P(C) No. 14631 of 2006 -: 8 :- 12 and 13 relate to Selection Grade Assistant, Senior Grade Assistant, Assistant Grade I and Assistant Grade II. The same read as follows: |**_Sl._**<br>**_No._**|**_Category/_**<br>**_Post_**|**_Scale of_**<br>**_Pay_**|**_Minimum_**<br>**_qualification_**|**_Age_**<br>**_limit_**|**_Method of_**<br>**_recruitment_**| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |10|Selection<br>Grade<br>Assistant|1760-3050|''|''|By promotion of<br>Senior<br>Grade<br>Assistant based on<br>seniority or by<br>Deputation.| |11|Senior<br>Grade<br>Assistant|1640-2900|''|''|By promotion of<br>Assistant Grade I<br>based on seniority or<br>by Deputation.| |12|Assistant<br>Grade I|1200-2040|''|''|By promotion of<br>Assistant Grade II<br>having completed the<br>period of probation<br>& pass A/c Test<br>Lower based on<br>seniority or by<br>Deputation.| |13|Assistants<br>Grade II|1200-2040|University<br>Degree|35|By recruitment on<br>the basis of merit<br>decided<br>by<br>competitive test after<br>inviting applications<br>by advertisement in<br>the press or by<br>Deputation.| The schedule to the statutes treats the four posts as distinct and separate posts. The schedule is prescribed under Statute 7, which reads as under: W.P(C) No. 14631 of 2006 -: 9 :- “7. Qualification, method of recruitment and scale of pay:The qualification, method of recruitment and scales of pay of the various posts of non-teaching staff in the University shall be such as in the Schedule.” Therefore, as per the Statute, there is no separate category of Assistant as such. In fact, the statute provides for four distinct posts of Selection Grade Assistant, Senior Grade Assistant, Assistant Grade I and Assistant Grade II, although in practice, all the four categories of posts carry the same duties and responsibilities. As such, there is no merit in the contention of the counsel for the University that Assistants form one category of which the four posts form different grades. I am also not inclined to adopt the interpretation suggested by the counsel for the University to the proviso to Rule 28(a)(ii). Such an interpretation presupposes a service for which any probation has been either prescribed or not prescribed. Probation is not prescribed for any service. Probation is prescribed for each post and for different posts, the period of probation would be different, such as two years within a period of 3 years, one year within a period of two years, six months within a period of one year etc. Therefore, the proviso to Rule 28(a)(ii) has to be read as the word qualifying the word 'post' but not the word 'service'. If that be so, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the University and the party respondents that the decision in **Suchithra's case** requires re-consideration, even assuming that I can in tune with judicial propriety doubt the correctness of that W.P(C) No. 14631 of 2006 -: 10 :- decision, which I doubt very much. 11. Counsel for the party respondents would raise three contentions. The first is regarding the competence of the petitioner to file this writ petition. The second is that there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner. The third is that if the interpretation put by the Division Bench in Rule 28(a)(ii) is applied, Rule 28(e) would become redundant. 12. As far as the first contention is concerned, I do not think that the petitioner is incompetent to file this writ petition merely on account of the fact that he is no longer an employee of the 1[st] respondent-University. Ext.P8 order specifically refers to the petitioner's name and Ext.P8 order works out to great disadvantage of the petitioner since as a direct consequence, the petitioner's pay in the University to which he was transferred would be considerably reduced. Further, Ext.P8 relates to the service put in by the petitioner in the 1[st] respondent-University. As such, the petitioner is a person aggrieved by Ext.P8 order of the University and therefore he is entitled to maintain this writ petition against Ext.P8 order. 13. Regarding the second contention, insofar as this writ petition was admitted in 2008, I am not inclined to relegate the petitioner to the alternate remedy at this point of time. In any event, this Court has, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a discretion to entertain a writ petition notwithstanding the alternate remedy available, in W.P(C) No. 14631 of 2006 -: 11 :- appropriate cases. I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case to exercise my discretion notwithstanding the availability of an alternate remedy. 14. The contention that if the interpretation put by the Division Bench is applied, Rule 28(e) would become meaningless, do not find favour with me. Rule 28(a)(ii) has been prescribed by the rule maker, taking into account Rule 28(e) as well. The Division Bench has held that both the rules go together. It can also be that it is because of the proviso to Rule 28(a)(ii), Rule 28(e) has been incorporated. Therefore, I do not find any merit in that contention as well. In view of the above findings, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Accordingly, Ext.P8 is quashed. It is declared that the promotions of the Assistants involved in this writ petition would be governed by Exts. P4 and P5 orders. The petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/