COMMON ORDER

The writ of Mandamus has been instituted to direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners as Assistant Professors in the concerned Departments of Bharathiyar University with effect from the date of their initial appointment.

2. The petitioners state that they were appointed as Assistant Professors in the concerned Departments in the 2nd respondent / University, pursuant to the notification issued by the respondent University on 11.07.2016, inviting applications for the recruitment to the post of Assistant Professors. Pursuant to the recruitment notification, the selection committee was constituted and the process of selection was conducted by following the procedures as contemplated. Accordingly, the petitioners were selected and appointed as Assistant Professors in the concerned Departments respectively.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners contended that the initial appointment of the writ petitioners were made under the XII Plan Period with reference to the scheme namely General Development Assistance. However, the petitioners were allowed to continue beyond the period of their initial appointment i.e., for one year. Initially, the petitioners were appointed on consolidated pay salary for a period of one year and by order dated 31.03.2017, the order of appointment was extended, until further orders. Thus, the petitioners are continuing in the services for the past about six years and therefore, they are entitled for regularisation and permanent absorption to the post of Assistant Professors in the time scale of pay as applicable under the University Grants Commission (UGC) norms.

4. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners reiterated that with reference to the previous XII Plan Period under the same scheme of General Development Assistance scheme, the Assistant Professors engaged on contract basis for consolidated pay salary were regularised and brought under the regular establishment. Thus, the similar benefits are to be extended to the writ petitioners also by regularising their services from the initial date of appointment on contract basis. When the benefit of regularisation and permanent absorption granted to the other similarly placed persons in respect of the previous plan, the same benefits are to be extended to the writ petitioners and the petitioners alone cannot be discriminated.

5. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners solicited the attention of this Court with reference to the order, extending the appointments of the writ petitioners in proceedings dated 31.03.2017, wherein, the contract appointment initially made was extended until further orders and thus, the petitioners were treated as regular employees for all purposes and consequently, the petitioners are entitled for regularisation.

6. The Finance Committee has not taken any decision in this regard.

The Government made it clear that the Finance Committee of the University has to take a decision in this regard. However, the University Finance Committee has not taken any decision and therefore, an appropriate direction is to be issued to direct the Finance Committee to take a decision and to resolve the issues in respect of grant of regularisation to these employees, who all are serving initially for the past about six years in the University with clean records of service.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent objected the contentions raised by the petitioners by stating that the initial appointment of the writ petitioners were not made in the regular post of Assistant Professor in the University. They were appointed under the name called General Development Assistance scheme as per the guidelines issued by the UGC i.e., XII Plan. The appointments of the petitioners were made for a period of one year for a consolidated pay salary. The period of service was extended, thereafter, as per the terms and conditions of th