The main legal point established in the judgment is that the resolution passed by the University was in conformity with the principles to be followed for the preparation of the seniority list.

The challenge in this writ petition is with reference to a Resolution passed in the syndicate of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University in Item No.1, Chapter I, (2) Petition No.5, 10, 11 and 16 dt.12. 2001 by which the syndicate has resolved to approve the refixation of seniority of 40 Junior Assistants on Merit-cum-Communal rotation as per the recommendation of the review committee.

.2. The facts of the case are as follows:

.The petitioner was appointed as Tabulator on a daily wages basis in the University in the year 1992. In 1994, the University decided to fill up the regular posts of Junior Assistants and the petitioner was also permitted to appear for the selection. The University conducted typewriting test, written test and interview on 24.08.1994 and 25.08.1994. Based on the performance in the written test and interview, she was appointed as permanent Tabulator on a consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/- per month on 06.09.1994.

3. According to the writ petitioner, she was the first person to join as Tabulator. Thereafter, she was regularly appointed as Junior Assistant on 07.09.1995. By order dated 210. 1997, her probation was declared as completed on 20.10.1997. By Resolution No.54, dated 111. 1997, the university fixed her seniority in the post of Junior Assistant and that she was placed at Serial No.1, on the basis of length of service and date of joining. Subsequently, by a letter dated 23.04.1998, the 1st respondent regularised her services in the post of Junior Assistant from 07.09.1994. Thereafter, by Resolution No.47 dated 15.05.2000, the University resolved to promote the senior most Junior Assistants as Assistants. As the petitioner was placed at Serial No.1, in the list of Junior Assistants, she made a representation dated 111. 2000 to promote her as Assistant based on the Resolution No.47 dated 15.05.2000, but she was not promoted.

4. While so, the University appointed a One Man Commission to look into the representations said to have been given by certain non-teaching staff. The report of the One Man Commission was also reviewed by a Review Committee based on the Syndicates resolution dated 15.05.2000. On the basis of the said committees recommendations, the Syndicate passed the impugned resolution.

.5. Assailing the resolution of the University, Mr.V.Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, submitted that on the basis of the performance of the writ petitioner, she was placed at Serial No.1 and that she was selected and appointed as Tabulator on 06.09.1994 and that she joined the said post immediately. Her probation was also declared on 20.10.1997 in the post of Junior Assistant and that the Syndicate in the meeting held on 111. 1997 have considered the seniority of 35 individuals who were appointed as Junior Assistants from the grades as noted against each in accordance with the earlier resolution dated 16.09.1995. He further submitted that when the services of the writ petitioner along with others were regularised with effect from 16.05.1995 and that when the petitioner was placed as Serial No.1 in the list of Junior Assistants, re-fixation of seniority of Junior Assistants, after four years is illegal and therefore the resolution has to be set aside.

6. Inviting the attention of this Court to the Tabular Columns wherein marks were entered by the Selection committee, for the post of Tabulators, recorded in the year 1994 and the observations of the One Man Commission that an authoritative merit list was not available on the date of scrutiny by the Committee, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the gradation list now produced before this Court should not be accepted for the reason that they are prepared to suit the convenience of the University, as if they had prepared the merit list, as on date of selection itself. He further submitted that there are chances for creating the merit list and therefore no credence should be given. He submitted that the date of appo