JUDGMENT

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.- Heard the counsel for the parties. Leave granted.

2. The dispute is between the degreeholders and the diplomaholders in the engineering service under the Madras Municipal Corporation.

3. The Corporation of Madras is governed by the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. It employs a good number of engineers in connection with the discharge of its duties. Till 1965, there was only one category of supervisors. Recruitment to this category was by direct recruitment of graduate engineers as well as by promotion from the lower category of overseers. Diplomaholders were not eligible for direct appointment as supervisors; they were first appointed to the category of overseers and then promoted as supervisors. The category above the supervisors was that of assistant engineers. Supervisors, whether directly recruited (graduates) or promotees (diplomaholders) were required to put in 20 years service in the category of supervisors to become eligible for promotion to the category of assistant engineers. No distinction was made as between the degreeholders (graduates) and diplomaholders in the matter of promotion or in the matter of eligibility criteria.

4. In the year 1965, say the appellants (who are all graduate engineers), the Corporation resolved (on August 7, 1965) to follow the rule in vogue in State Government service and apply the ratio of 3:1 between graduates and diplomaholders in the matter of promotion to the category of assistant engineers. The respondents who are all diplomaholders, deny that any such resolution was passed. According to them it was only a recommendation of the Ad hoc Committee constituted by the Corporation and that the said recommendation was never accepted as such by the Corporation. The respondents rely upon the Division Bench judgment dated December 21, 1989 in Writ Appeal No. 990 of 1984 etc. holding that no such ratio was actually enforced in the Corporation Engineering Service. Be that as it may, some time prior to 1969, the Act was amended empowering the Government to frame rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of the employees of the Corporation. In exercise of the said power, the Government of Tamil Nadu framed rules called Madras Corporation Engineering Service Rules (contained in GOMs No. 31 RD-LA dated January 7, 1969). These rules applied only to Class I-A, I-B and Class II of Engineering Services under the Corporation and not to other posts. The post of assistant engineer was in Category III in Class II. Recruitment to this category was by (a) direct recruitment (b) promotion from the category of supervisors and (c) by appointment on deputation from the Government department. So far as promotion is concerned, a distinction was made as between degreeholders and diplomaholders. The graduate supervisors were required to put in a minimum of five years service in the category of supervisors for becoming eligible for promotion, whereas the diplomaholder supervisors were required to put in a minimum service of ten years as supervisors to become eligible for such promotion. At about this time, a practice developed whereunder graduate supervisors were referred to as junior engineers. The diploma holder supervisors (who are necessarily promotees in the category of supervisors) continued to be referred to as supervisors.

5. In the year 1978 the Government of Tamil Nadu altered the designations of the categories relevant before us by GOMs No. 954 dated June 2, 1978. Para 2 of the G.O. stated that the diplomaholder supervisors shall be designated as junior engineers while the degreeholder supervisors (who had come to be known as junior engineers meanwhile) would be designated as assistant engineers. Consequently the erstwhile post of assistant engineer was re-designated as assistant executive engineer. By GOMs No. 907, dated May 20, 1981, this change in designation was given effect to and incorporated in the statutory rules issued in 1969 (Madras Corpo