- (1.) PETITIONER 's father, an employee of Bangalore University, while in service, died on 13.09.1999. On an application made, the petitioner was appointed as 'Peon' in the University, by an order dated 05.12.2000, vide Annexure -K. He accepted the appointment without any demur. However, after more than three years, he submitted representations to appoint him as 'First Division Assistant'. Claiming that the University has considered the claims of 15 similarly situated persons and appointed them to the post of FDA, though they were initially appointed to the post of Group -D, by making reference to an Order dated 14.06.2006 passed in W.P.No.32634/2003, petitioner having submitted further representations on 30.09.2013 and 11.02.2014 and finding no response, this writ petition was filed asking for a mandamus as against respondent No.2, to consider the representations vide Annexures L, M, N, P & Q and appoint him to the cadre of FDA and extend all service benefits.
(2.) SRI Girish Bandi, learned advocate, contended that the 2nd respondent ought to have considered the representations submitted by the petitioner in the light of the Order passed in W.P. No.32634/2003 on 14.06.2006 and also the appointment orders issued to 15 other employees on 28.02.2007 vide Annexure -R. Learned counsel submitted that since the petitioner was not given appointment on 05.12.2000, commensurate with the academic qualification possessed by him, on account of the discriminatory treatment, there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and hence, interference is called for.
(3.) PERUSED the writ record. Undisputedly, the petitioner accepted the appointment to the post of Group -D / Peon vide Annexure4 K without any demur and the first of the representations submitted, even according to the writ petition averments was on 24.01.2003. The petitioner cannot seek subsequent consideration for higher post, in as much as, the petitioner should progress in the ladder and earn promotions to the next higher post/s. Mere possessing of the higher qualification than the one prescribed for the post offered vide Annexure -K, cannot be a criterion for claiming appointment on a subsequent occasion, to a higher post. It is not the case of the petitioner that when he was appointed on 05.12.2000, there was any discriminatory treatment by the 2nd respondent. What has happened subsequently i.e., on 28.02.2007, i.e., more than six years of the petitioner's appointment, cannot have any bearing with regard to the regulation of the petitioner's service conditions.;