Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(SC) 1083

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
Association of Engineers - Appellant
Vs.
Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 995 of 2009
With
T. Kannan - Appellant
Vs.
Association of Engineers, Tamil Nadu & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 997-998 of 2009
Decided On : 14-09-2017

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Mr. N. Subramaniyan, Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Ms. Neha Rathi, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Mr. N. Subramaniyan, Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Mr. Nikhil Nayyar
For the Respondents: Mr. V. Prakash, Mr. Eashwar, Mr. A.V. Rangam, Mr. Buddy A. Ranganadhan, Mr. K.V. Vijaykumar, Ms. Maitreyee Mishra, Mr. P. Rajendran, Mr. Beno Banugar, Mr. Harsh Prabha, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, Mr. R. Nedumaran, Ms. A. Sumathi, Mr. B. Balaji

The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the amendments made in the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Engineering Subordinate Service, particularly regarding the eligibility criteria for the posts of Assistant Engineers.

Headnote:
Tribunal Adjudication - Tamil Nadu Engineering Subordinate Service - G.O.Ms.No.1745 dated 10th October, 1972, G.O.Ms.No.1356 dated 2.8.1980, Tamil Nadu Engineer Service Special Rules, 1985 - The judgment discusses the amendments made in the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Engineering Subordinate Service and the eligibility criteria for the posts of Assistant Engineers. It highlights the changes in the rules from 1972 to 1985 and the eligibility of Overseers and Civil Draftsmen for promotion as Assistant Engineers.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant challenged the adjudication made by the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court. The case involved the recruitment of Assistant Engineers in the Tamil Nadu Engineering Subordinate Service and the amendments made in the Special Rules for the appointment of Overseers, Head Draftsmen, or Civil Draftsmen.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the Rules of 1985 held the field and the action of the respondents was in accordance with the law. It rejected the appellant's submissions regarding the recruitment ratio and illegal usurpation of the quota of direct recruitment.
Issues: The issues involved the eligibility criteria for the posts of Assistant Engineers, the recruitment ratio, and the interpretation of the amendments made in the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Engineering Subordinate Service.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Rules of 1985 governed the recruitment of Assistant Engineers and that Overseers and Civil Draftsmen were eligible for promotion as Assistant Engineers as per the rules in force.
Final Decision: The appeals were found bereft of merits and were dismissed.

ORDER :

1. The appellant has come up in appeals, questioning the adjudication made by the Tribunal, which has been affirmed by the High Court. The Tribunal had directed with respect to the posts of Assistant Engineers that the same shall be filled up in the ratio of 3:1, with reference to direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer from the eligible persons holding basic qualifications as per rules.

2. The case has a chequered history. In the year 1972, Government order, i.e., G.O.Ms.No.1745 dated 10th October, 1972 was promulgated, which amended the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Engineering Subordinate Service for appointment of Overseers, Head Draftsmen or Civil Draftsmen possessing L.C.E. and A.M.I.E. (India) qualification with a minimum service of three years as Junior Engineers re-designated as Assistant Engineers. The following amendment had been made in the said Rules:

“AMENDMENT

In the said Special Rules in Schedule-II to Branch 1 of Part-II after the existing proviso under Item-5(IV)(C) in Col.2 against the item 'Supervisors' in Col(1) the following shall be added, namely:-

"Provided further than an Overseer or Head Draftsman or Civil D'Man (possessing diploma in Civil Engineering and A.M.I.E. (India) qualification shall be eligible for appointment as Junior Engineer if he has rendered service for not less than three years'."

3. As per the aforesaid amendment made, the Overseers or Head Draftsmen or Civil Draftsmen possessing the qualification of Diploma in Civil Engineering and the qualification of A.M.I.E. (India) were eligible for the posts of Junior Engineers. It was followed by another Government order, i.e., G.O.Ms.No.1356 dated 2.8.1980, which contained the proposal of the Government in paragraph 3, with respect to the promotion to the post of Junior Engineers and Supervisors, equivalent to Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers respectively. A suggestion was made that quota should be filled up by way of transfer from the cadre of Head Draftsmen and Draftsmen, on acquiring the degree, qualification or its equivalent. Paragraph 3 is extracted hereunder:

"3. The Commission, is of the view that a person holding the post of Overseer and Draftsmen, Grade II and III carrying a lower pay cannot be equated to a person holding the higher post of Junior Engineer (now Assistant Engineer) on acquiring the degree qualification for the purpose of appointment to the still higher post of Assistant Engineers (now Assistant Executive Engineers) and that while considering him for promotion to a higher post, the rank held by him and the pay drawn by him in the lower post cannot be wholly ignored. The Commission is of the opinion that the provision made in the amendment issued in 1972, viz. Automatic conversion of Overseers/Head Draftsmen/Civil Draftsman as Assistant on acquiring A.M.I.E. qualification with three years service is not correct and that the anomaly should be set right. The Commission has therefore, suggested that Head Draftsmen and Draftsman Grade alone, whose scale of pay is higher than those of Junior Engineers and Supervisors (now Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer respectively), on acquiring the degree qualification or its equivalent, be assigned rank below the last Junior Engineer (now Assistant Engineer) selected by the Commission in the year in which they acquire the qualification. The Government has decided to accept the recommendations of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in this regard."

4. The same culminated into an amendment of the Rules. The following amendment had been made in the Rules, on 6.1.1983, which came into force on 2.8.1980 :

“AMENDMENT

In the said special Rules, in Part II, in Branch I, in schedule II, for the third proviso in column (2) against the post "Supervisors" in column (1) thereof, the following proviso shall be substituted, namely:-

“Provided also that the Head Draftsma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document