Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 785 (GAU)

Lalit Debnath v. Tripura University

2005-11-18

TINLIANTHANG VAIPHEI

body2005
JUDGMENT Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J. 1. The non-promotion of the Petitioner to the post of Assistant Registrar/Assistant Controller of Examinations or the equivalent post thereto in the Tripura University and the vires of the impugned orders promoting the private Respondents to the post of University Accounts Officer and Assistant Controller of Examinations are called into question in this writ petition. 2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the writ petition may be briefly noted first. The Petitioner was appointed as laboratory Assistant (Chemistry) in the higher scale of pay on 30.01.1979. In the year 1979, this post came to be re-designated as Senior Laboratory Assistant. In the year 1987, the Tripura University was established under the provisions of the Tripura University Act with the result that the employees of the erstwhile Calcutta University Post Graduate Centre at Agartala stood absorbed to the service of the newly constituted Tripura University. It would appear that the pay of the employees of the Tripura University got revised with effect from 01.01.1986 whereupon three pay scales were envisaged for the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant viz. (i) Rs. 1500-3320/- (ii) 1550-3530/- and (iii) Rs. 1830-3930/- in which the Petitioner was allow the pay scales of Rs. 1500-3320/-. After completion of ten years of continuous service in that post, he was given the next higher grade of Rs. 1550-3530/- w.e.f. 01.01.1989. It further appears that by the time the Petitioner was eligible for the next higher grade of Rs. 1830-3930/-, this scale of pay got revised to Rs. 7450-13,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 but he was allowed to move to this pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996. On the other hand, the Respondents No. 3 and 4 entered into the same service as Lower Division Clerks in the lower pay scale, which was also revised to higher pay scale from time to time. 3. It would further appear that the Respondent No. 3 was given two promotions and till the relevant time was holding the post of Superintendent in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-12300/-. Similarly, the Respondent No. 4 was also given two promotions and was till the relevant time enjoying the pay scale of Rs. 6500-12300/-. 3. It would further appear that the Respondent No. 3 was given two promotions and till the relevant time was holding the post of Superintendent in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-12300/-. Similarly, the Respondent No. 4 was also given two promotions and was till the relevant time enjoying the pay scale of Rs. 6500-12300/-. According to the Petitioner, under the provisions of the Tripura University Ordinances and the First Regulation of 1999, there are six category of post in the Tripura University and the officials who are getting the pay scales of Superintendent are eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar/Assistant Controller of Examinations and the equivalent posts. It is the case of the Petitioner that since he is enjoying salaries in a pay scale higher than the pay scale of the post of Superintendent, he is also equally eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar/Assistant Controller of Examinations and/or equivalent posts, but for reasons best known to the Respondents No. 1 and 2, he has not been considered for such promotion though he is rotting in the same post since 30.01.9979 which is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. 4. It is further contended by the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 4, who was initially appointed as L.D.C., was given two promotions i.e., first to the post of Senior Assistant and thence to the post of Head Cashier, which was subsequently re-designated as Supervisor, in addition to allowing him to move to the higher pay scale under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), even though he was never stagnated in the post she held heretofore. This, according to the Petitioner, is nothing but favouritism to give undue benefit to the said Respondent, and is also a device to bring him within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar/Assistant Controller of Examinations or other equivalent posts at the expense of the Petitioner, who, enjoying a higher pay scale, has been denied consideration for promotion to the said posts. It is contended by the Petitioner that since Explanation 3 to Clause 79 (Chapter-XV) of the Tripura University First Ordinances, 1989 defines the term Superintendent as inclusive of other employees belonging to the same scale of pay, he has to be treated as holding a post higher than the post of Superintendent and is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar/Assistant Controller of Examinations and other equivalent posts. It is thus contended that the non-consideration of the Petitioner for promotion to the said higher rank/post negates Article 14 of the Constitution. 5. At this stage, it may be noted that the Petitioner subsequently amended his writ petition incorporating new developments occurring in the interregnum. The Petitioner stated therein that the Respondents No. 1 and 2 by the order dated 10.11.2003 promoted the Respondents No. 3 and 4 to the posts of University Accounts Officer and Assistant Controller of Examinations respectively superseding him, who is senior to them for all purposes and intents. The Petitioner thus questions the bonafides of the Respondents No. 1 and 2 in holding the D.P.C., in issuing the promotion orders and in allowing them to join their respective posts on the same day in haste and claims that the entire exercise was carried out to frustrate possible interim order from this Court. In my opinion, no specific plea of mala fides is alleged by the Petitioner in respect of the unusual haste in processing and completing the promotion of the private Respondents and, therefore, such hasty action, in the absence of positive evidence on record to prove malice, cannot necessarily be held to be mala fide or illegal. Secondly, when there was no stay order passed by this Court at the relevant time, the Respondents No. 1 and 2 were well within their power to issue the impugned promotion orders. Coming back to the meat of the matter, it is submitted by the Petitioner that the impugned promotion orders are void ab initio as the same were not made by the Syndicate of the University on the recommendation of the Standing Committee. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and a direction be issued to the Respondents No. 1 and 2 to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the said next higher posts. 6. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and a direction be issued to the Respondents No. 1 and 2 to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the said next higher posts. 6. The Respondent No. 1 and 2 contested the writ petition and filed their affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit, it is pointed out that the Petitioner did not challenge the order/notification/memorandum of the University alleged (?) for the promotion to Assistant Registrar/Assistant Controller of Examinations and/or equivalent posts. It is further pointed out therein that the Petitioner, being a science graduate, was appointed to the post of Laboratory Assistant (Chemistry), which is purely a technical post, fully knowing well the consequences of joining such a post. On the other hand, according to the answering Respondents, the Respondents No. 3 and 4 were initially appointed to and remained till the relevant date in the ministerial cadre and had been admittedly enjoying lower pay scale than the Petitioner as per admissible rules. Since the Petitioner continues to occupy a technical post at a higher pay scale, he naturally enjoys higher pay than the private Respondents. It is also stated by the Respondent-University that since technical category of posts cannot be equated with ministerial posts, which have promotional avenues, three graded pay scales have been provided for the technical post of Laboratory Assistant by way of Career Advancement. Accordingly, pointed out the answering Respondents, the Petitioner received three upward gradations of pay scales with a revised higher grade of Rs. 7450-13000/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996 while the Respondent No. 4 never received the benefit of CAS except for the financial benefit given to him and the Petitioner in 1999. It is further pointed out by the answering Respondents that the Petitioner, who initially joined the post of L.D.C. later on switched over to the technical post of Laboratory Assistant, cannot now complain that he is not given the promotional avenues made available to the ministerial cadre. It is also stated by the answering Respondents that the post of Head Cashier held by the Respondent No. 4 has been re-designated as "Supervisor" in accordance with the pay scale given to such post in the Calcutta University vide the notification dated 12.3.1997 (Annexure-R/1). 7. It is also stated by the answering Respondents that the post of Head Cashier held by the Respondent No. 4 has been re-designated as "Supervisor" in accordance with the pay scale given to such post in the Calcutta University vide the notification dated 12.3.1997 (Annexure-R/1). 7. In the said affidavit of the answering Respondents, it is stated that the re-designation of the post of Head Cashier as Supervisor and of conferring upon it the status of Office Superintendent were done by the Syndicate, which is the competent body for the same, in its 80th meeting held on 2-3rd February, 2000 (Annexure-R/2 series). The answering Respondents deny that the University went out of track to confer unusual benefit to the Respondent No. 4 to bring him within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, etc. The said Respondents assert that the posts of Superintendent/ Supervisor are administrative in character and cannot be equated with the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant (in Chemistry), which is purely a technical post, and, therefore, cannot be made the feeder post for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, etc. for administrative reasons. It is pointed out by the said Respondents that the Recruitment Rules for the post of Sr. Laboratory Assistant (Chemistry Deptt.) in terms of the Notification dated 31.8.2001 clearly shows this post to be a technical post i.e. Group C (Technical) with a pay scale of Rs. 5500-10700/- whereas the Recruitment Rules for the post of Superintendent has classified this post to be Group B (Ministerial), thereby indicating in no uncertain terms that the post of Superintendent and not the post of Sr. Laboratory Assistant is the feeder post for promotion to Assistant Registrar and other equivalent posts. It is the case of the answering Respondents that the Petitioner has never raised any objection against the said recruitment rules, and is thus barred from claiming that the post of Sr. Laboratory Assistant is also the feeder post for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, etc. It is further pointed out by the said Respondents that in, the year 1987, when the Calcutta Post Graduate Centre was under the erstwhile Calcutta University Post-Graduate Centre, one Chitta Ranjan Das was promoted to the post of Accounts Officer from the post of Superintendent. It is further pointed out by the said Respondents that in, the year 1987, when the Calcutta Post Graduate Centre was under the erstwhile Calcutta University Post-Graduate Centre, one Chitta Ranjan Das was promoted to the post of Accounts Officer from the post of Superintendent. Similarly, in the year 1993, one Anil Kishore Majumder, Superintendent, was promoted to the post of Accounts Officer strictly in terms of his seniority position in the Seniority List of the Ministerial cadre. Again, in 1997, one Mihir Bhattacharjee was promoted from the post of Superintendent to Assistant Registrar of the University. It is thus contended that the consistent practice and norms of the University since its inception have been to promote only those who belong to the ministerial cadre to the post of Assistant Registrar, etc. It is also pointed out by the answering Respondents that there is no common seniority list for the post of ministerial staff and the technical staff; a separate seniority list has always been maintained for the two groups of staff. According to answering Respondents, the Petitioner has never made any objection to this arrangement. 8. The Petitioner in his subsequent affidavit maintains that the University has never made any distinction between a technical post and a ministerial post and that the post of Sr. Laboratory Assistant has never been treated as a technical post. He asserts that the Seniority List at Annexure-R/6 is only in respect of the post of Superintendent and not for the post of Supervisor, which is a non-existent post He also states that the fact that the DPC was constituted without giving 15 days' time to the representative of the Tribal Welfare Department as required by law demonstrates that the promotion process was hastily completed to show undue favour to the Respondents No. 3 and 4. A number of affidavits have been filed by both the parties thereafter. I do not intend to reproduce all of them but must confine myself to only some facts which will have material bearing in this case. I cannot but express my indignation to exercise undertaken by both the parties. I must say that most of the averments in those affidavits are mere repetition of the earlier pleadings, which only betray callousness and non-application of mind by both the parties. I cannot but express my indignation to exercise undertaken by both the parties. I must say that most of the averments in those affidavits are mere repetition of the earlier pleadings, which only betray callousness and non-application of mind by both the parties. When so many irrelevant and repetitive pleadings are made, there is every danger of missing the woods for the trees. The learned Counsel for the parties must give proper assistance to this Court and must not confuse this Court unwittingly or otherwise. This Court is not dealing with one case alone. A number of cases belonging to other litigants are waiting in queue for the decision of this Court. I hope and trust that parties hereafter shall refrain from filing pleadings after pleadings when not really called for or at least from repeating the pleadings already covered on earlier occasions. I am also not unmindful of the fact that this Court also has its own share of responsibility in this misadventure. Therefore, this Court also shall hereafter refrain from granting leave to the parties to file further affidavits after the filing of affidavit-in-opposition except for compelling circumstances to avoid future occurrence of the farcical exercises we have just undertaken. 9. It is the further case of the answering Respondents that by the letter dated 28.06.2002, the Registrar of the University informed the Respondent No. 4 that his date of joining the post of Supervisor, which is equivalent to Superintendent, was made with effect from 15.10.1998 and that the seniority list was also modified to this extent accordingly. It is further stated by the said Respondents that on the writ petition filed by the Respondent No. 3 before this Court in W.P. (C) No. 376 of 2000, this Court in the judgment dated 13.09.2001 held that a person holding the post of Superintendent with 5 years continuous regular service is eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar/equivalent post and accordingly directed the Respondent-University to consider the case of the Respondent No. 3 herein for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar/equivalent post. According to the Respondents, it was on the basis of this direction that the process for promotion of the private Respondents was initiated and completed for the smooth functioning of the University. According to the Respondents, it was on the basis of this direction that the process for promotion of the private Respondents was initiated and completed for the smooth functioning of the University. It is pointed out by the said Respondents that the interim order dated 14.10.2003 already stood vacated when the promotion orders were issued. It is also stated that the Syndicate meeting held on 03.11.2003 and on 10.11.2003 unanimously approved the impugned promotion orders. It is also stated that the impugned promotion was done by the Vice Chancellor by invoking the emergency clause conferred upon him by Section 10(6) of the Tripura University Act, 1987 (as amended in 1990) to facilitate day to day running of the University. In the supplementary counter-affidavit, the Respondents No. 1 and 2 aver that prior to the constitution of the Tripura University, the erstwhile Post Graduate Centre of Calcutta University at Agartala followed all the rules and regulations of the Calcutta University and that even after the Tripura University came into existence, in the absence of any rules or regulations, the rules and procedures of the Calcutta University are followed by the Tripura University. The Calcutta University fills up 60% of the posts of Assistant Registrars/Assistant Controller of Examination and/or equivalent posts in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- by promotion from Senior Superintendents and other categories of supervisory staff of equivalent rank with the pay scale of Rs. 1550-3530/- on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and following the same procedure, the posts of Assistant Registrar/Assistant Controller of Examination and/or equivalent post of Tripura University are also filled up from amongst the incumbents holding supervisory posts. 10. Though the facts raised by both the parties are numerous, the only question which falls for consideration in this case is whether the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant in the Tripura University is the feeder post for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar/Assistant Controller of Examination and other post equivalent thereto. It is an admitted position of the parties that the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant was not there originally but the same into in existence with effect from 01.12.1979 i.e., the date of Revision of pay by re-designating the erstwhile post of Laboratory Assistant. It is an admitted position of the parties that the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant was not there originally but the same into in existence with effect from 01.12.1979 i.e., the date of Revision of pay by re-designating the erstwhile post of Laboratory Assistant. It may be noted that the post of the erstwhile Laboratory Assistant is covered by the term Assistants of the Explanation 5 to Clause 79 of the Tripura University First Ordinances, 1989 (1st Ordinance for short), which also covers the posts of Technical Assistants, Caretaker, Departmental Librarians, Telephone Operators, Electricians, Overseers, Draftsmen and Mechanics. Though the procedure/method/mode of promotion for the post of Assistant Registrars/Assistant Controller of Examination and other equivalent posts are not mentioned in the 1st Ordinances, the First Statutes and the Tripura University Act, 1987 (the Act for short), Clause (1) of Annexure-I to the letter No. F.2 (450-60)-DHE/89 dated 22.01.1992 of the Education Department, Govt. of Tripura provides as follows: (3) The minimum qualifications for recruitment of Assistant Registrars and their equivalent will be a Master's degree will 55% marks. All direct recruitment should made through All India Advertisement and Selection, on the basis of written test and interview. 50% of posts at this level may be filled through promotion from the lower grades. The minimum educational qualification mentioned above will not apply in the ease of promotion. 11. A perusal of the foregoing will reveal that 50% of the posts of Assistant Registrar and its equivalent posts are to be filled up by promotion from the lower grades. However, the term lower grades has not been explained. Nor is the minimum qualifications for the promotion to this posts mentioned therein. At this stage, it will be profitable to quote the observations made by the learned Single Judge of this Court (B.B. Deb J.) in the judgment dated 13.09.2001 in Mrinal Kanti Bhowmik v. Tripura University and other, W.P. (C) No. 376 of 2000. 4. From the pleadings of the parties and upon hearing the learned Counsel representing the contesting parties to the list the following features appear to be admitted: (i) That mode of appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar/Assistant Controller of Examination/other equivalent posts are from two sources: One by direct recruitment; another by promotion from lower grade. (ii) Qualifying service in the lower grade to earn eligibility for consideration is fixed 5 years. (ii) Qualifying service in the lower grade to earn eligibility for consideration is fixed 5 years. (iii) Prior to circular dated 24.12.1998 there was no educational qualification criteria prescribed in case of promotion from the lower grade. 12. His Lordship further held at para 16: 16. From the aforesaid discussion it reveals that the University Grant Commission imposed eligibility standard to be applied in case of filling up the different posts covered by the said guideline by way or direct recruitment. So far promotion is concerned the University Grant Commission neither prescribed any eligibility criteria nor superseded the earlier provision and, as such, in my considered opinion the incumbent including the Petitioner holding the post of Superintendent having 5 years continuous regular service is/are eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar/ equivalent post and the standard eligibility guideline prescribed by the University Grant Commission is only applicable to the case of direct recruitment. 13. From the paragraphs extracted above, it is obvious that an incumbent holding the post of Superintendent with five years continuous regular service is eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar or its equivalent posts and that the eligibility criteria prescribed therein by the University Grants Commission contained in the said letter 22.01.1992 for direct recruitment is not applicable for such promotion. Since the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge has not been challenged in appeal, the law laid down therein has attained finality. It is, however, the case of the Petitioner that as the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant held by him carries a salary higher than the post of Superintendent, he is equally eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar or its equivalent posts. It is his contention that the recruitment rules do not exclude the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant from the feeder post of the Assistant Registrar or its equivalent posts and that no distinction can be validly made between a technical post and a non-technical post as claimed by the Respondents. Mr. It is his contention that the recruitment rules do not exclude the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant from the feeder post of the Assistant Registrar or its equivalent posts and that no distinction can be validly made between a technical post and a non-technical post as claimed by the Respondents. Mr. S. Deb, the learned senior Counsel for the Respondent-University, submits that the Petitioner is holding the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant (Chemistry Department) and that the Recruitment Rules for this post reflected in the Notification dated 31.08.2001 classifies this post as Group C (Technical) thereby removing any doubt that the post is a technical post and not an administrative or supervisory post held by the private Respondents prior to their respective promotions. Drawing my attention to the letter dated 21.09.1991 addressed by the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal to the Registrar, North Bengal University and the Advertisement dated 02.11.1999 issued by the Indian Institute of Science for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar in those institutions, he submits that it has been the consistent practice of these institutions that the post in question are always filled up by promotion only from administrative/supervisory staff and not by the incumbents holding technical posts. 14. Undoubtedly, the recruitment rules for the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant classifies this post to be a technical post and not an administrative or supervisory post. Secondly, there is no evidence to show that the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant or the erstwhile Laboratory Assistant has ever been treated as the feeder post for promotion of Assistant Registrar or its equivalent posts at any time. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the Respondent-University that right from the time of its predecessor i.e. Calcutta University Post Graduate Centre, it has been the consistent practice that the posts of Assistant Registrar or its equivalent post such as Assistant Controller of Examination, University Accounts Officer, etc. of the University, in so far as the promotion quotas are concerned, are filled up by promotion from the ministerial staff and not from technical post. It is thus seen that in the year 1993, one Anil Kishore Majumder holding the post of Superintendent was promoted to Accounts Officer while in the year 1997, another incumbent holding similar post was promoted to the Assistant Registrar. It is thus seen that in the year 1993, one Anil Kishore Majumder holding the post of Superintendent was promoted to Accounts Officer while in the year 1997, another incumbent holding similar post was promoted to the Assistant Registrar. It is also not disputed that in the year 1987, one Chitta Ranjan Das holding similar post was promoted to Account Officer when Calcutta University Post Graduate Centre was functioning in Tripura. Apparently, the term "lower grade" appearing in Clause (3) of Annexure-I in the aforementioned recruitment rules has always been taken to be ministerial grades i.e. those holding supervisory or administrative posts and not technical posts. Furthermore, Calcutta University, North Bengal University and Indian Institute of Science have uniformly filled up the promotion quota of the post of Assistant Registrar or its equivalent posts from the administrative/supervisory posts. Clause 88 of the First Statutes, Tripura University provides that the practice and procedure of the University of Calcutta as constituted under the Calcutta University Act, 1979 (West Bengal Act XXXVIII K of 1979) shall, in so far they are not repugnant to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes, the Ordinances and the Regulations, continue to be in force in respect of the University until altered, repealed or amended. This provision clearly empowers the Respondent-University to adopt the practice and procedure of the University of Calcutta so long as they are not inconsistent with the Acts or Ordinances or the Regulations of Tripura University. In that view of the matter, the practice of filling up by promotion the posts of Assistant Registrar or its equivalent posts from administrative or supervisory posts, in so far as promotion quotas is concerned, followed by the Respondent-University, does not appear to be assailable. 15. Moreover, a uniform and consistent departmental practice arising out of construction placed upon an ambiguous statute by the highest executive officers at or near the time of its enactment and continuing for a long period of time is held to be an admissible aid to the proper construction of the statute by the Court and would not be disregarded except for cogent reasons. Contemporary official statements throwing light on the construction of a statute and statutory instruments made under it have been used as contemporanea expositio to interpret not only ancient but even recent statutes both in England and India (See G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 9th Edition, P. 298). Contemporary official statements throwing light on the construction of a statute and statutory instruments made under it have been used as contemporanea expositio to interpret not only ancient but even recent statutes both in England and India (See G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 9th Edition, P. 298). In N. Suresh Nathan v. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 584, the Apex Court was called upon to decide on the construction of a service rule which enabled Section Officers possessing a recognized Degree in Civil Engineering or equivalent to claim eligibility for promotion if they had put in "three years service in the grade" whereas six years service was required to make a Diploma holder eligible for promotion. The question, which arose therein, was as to the point of time from which the period of three years was to be counted in a case where the Section officer obtained the degree during service. The practice over a long period was to count the period of three years from the date the officer obtained the degree and this practice was relied upon for the construing the rule. The Apex Court held that if the past practice is based on one of the possible constructions which can be made of the rules, then unsetting the same now would not be appropriate. In the instant case, the recruitment rules are silent on whether the post of 50% of the post of Assistant Registrar or its equivalent posts are to be filled up by promotion from technical posts or non-technical posts such as administrative or supervisory posts. The Respondent-University has obviously followed the consistent practice of filling up the promotion posts in question from non-technical posts for over a long period of time by following the practice of Calcutta University. In my opinion, there is thus no infirmity in the impugned promotion orders of the private Respondents. In the absence a specific provision making the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant as the feeder post for such promotion, the Petitioner cannot insist that he be held eligible for promotion to such post. Nor can this Court direct the Respondent-University to include the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant as one of the feeder posts for Assistant Registrar or its equivalent posts. Nor can this Court direct the Respondent-University to include the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant as one of the feeder posts for Assistant Registrar or its equivalent posts. Once it is found that no specific provision is made in the recruitment rules for including the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant as the feeder post for promotion to Assistant Registrar and other equivalent posts, it can be safely said that the Respondent-University has not committed any illegality or irrationality or procedural impropriety in excluding this post as the feeder post for such promotion. It is trite that when more than one choice is open to the administrative authorities, they have a certain amount of discretion available to them. They have a right to choose between more than one possible course of action upon which there is room for reasonable people to hold differing opinion as to which is to be preferred. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot substitute its judgment for the judgment of the Respondent-University in such cases. 16. It is also the case of the Petitioner that the Recruitment Rules at Annexure-R/4 series which, among others, made the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant as a technical post was never notified in the usual manner, but was kept in a secret file and are contrary to the classification of posts envisaged in the Tripura University Ordinance/Regulation, 1989 and, as such, the same is illegal and cannot be acted upon. It is true that Clause 79 of the Tripura University First Ordinance, 1989 provides for classification of its employees and that no distinction is indeed made therein between a technical post and non-technical post. But then, no provision is either available prohibiting the Respondent-University from making such a classification for the purpose of making some posts as technical posts for promotion to higher posts. Classification of some posts as technical posts or non-technical posts for that purpose can be one such instance. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant is a non-technical post. If that be so, there can be no irrationality in reserving non-technical posts such as Assistant Registrar or its equivalent posts, which are undisputedly ministerial/supervisory/ administrative posts, for accommodating by promotion the incumbents from non-technical cadres. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant is a non-technical post. If that be so, there can be no irrationality in reserving non-technical posts such as Assistant Registrar or its equivalent posts, which are undisputedly ministerial/supervisory/ administrative posts, for accommodating by promotion the incumbents from non-technical cadres. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to accept the contention of the Petitioner that the recruitment rules, ipso facto, is illegal. It may also be noted that the vires of the Recruitment Rules has not been specifically challenged by the Petitioner. In any case, no provision is traceable in the Statute or Ordinance/Act of the University requiring the notification of such a Recruitment Rules. In the absence of such a challenge, this Court has to proceed on the assumption that the Recruitment Rules is valid. It may further be reiterated that the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant has never been expressly included as the feeder post for promotion to Assistant Registrar or its equivalent posts and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Petitioner has a vested or accrued right to be considered for such promotion. In that view of the matter, the Recruitment Rules in question does not impair the right of the Petitioner in any manner. 17. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, this writ petition has no merit and fails. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.