SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Association of Engineers and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4372, 4886-4888, 4889-4890, 4891-4892, 5747-5750 of 2023
Decided On : 16-04-2024
Service Law – Appointment – As Assistant Engineers on transfer of service – State Government was required to take a decision to appoint Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers on temporary basis as it was found that out of 122 vacancies apportioned to post of Assistant Engineer to be filled up by recruitment by transfer, only 29 vacancies had been filled so far – Attempt of appellant association is to grab all posts available even those apportioned for candidates promoted from subordinate services – Such attitude is totally inequitable – Continuation of appellants as Assistant Engineers would not amount to encroaching upon 75% posts apportioned for members of appellants’ association – In any case, any interference at this stage is likely to undo settled position which has been prevalent almost for a period of last 18 years – Equity demands no interference to be warranted in impugned judgment in facts and circumstances of the case. (Paras 25, 26 and 27)
Facts of the case:
Present set of appeals challenge judgment dated 3rd August 2022, passed by Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Madras whereby writ appeals being W.A. Nos. 82 and 95 of 2015 and 5251 of 2022 filed by respondents herein were allowed and order dated 23rd December 2014 passed by Single Judge of Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 11148 of 2017 was quashed and set aside.
Findings of Court:
Contention of appellants that services of Technical Assistants have not been regularized is contrary to record. In any case, State Government, in its affidavit dated 10th March 2023, has categorically reaffirmed this position.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
Civil Appeal Nos. 4886 to 4889, 4892 and 5748 to 5750 of 2023
1. The present set of appeals challenge the judgment dated 3rd August 2022, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (‘Madras High Court’ for short), whereby the writ appeals being W.A. Nos. 82 and 95 of 2015 and 5251 of 2022 filed by the respondents herein were allowed and the order dated 23rd December 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 11148 of 2017 was quashed and set aside.
2. The facts giving rise to present appeals are as under:
2.2 On 2nd January 1990, Public Works Department, Government of Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as ‘PWD’) issued an order being G.O. Ms. No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘G.O. No. 1’) accepting the recommendations of Chief Engineer, PWD (General) and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘TNPSC’) and directed that from the date of this order, Junior Draughting Officers, Draughting Officers, Overseers and Technical Assistants, who have completed 5 years of service and acquired BE/AMIE qualification, will be entitled to be appointed as Assistant Engineers on transfer of service.
2.3 On 22nd January 1991, Government Order being G.O. Ms. No. 88 of 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “G.O. No. 88”) came to be issued wherein it was clarified that TNPSC need not be consulted for appointment of Junior Draughting Officers, Draughting Officers, Overseers and Technical Assistants, who have completed 5 years of service and acquired BE/AMIE qualification, as Assistant Engineers.
2.4 Writ Petition No. 3309 of 1991 came to be filed before the Madras High Court by Engineering Graduates challenging G.O. No. 1 on the ground that part-time B.E. Degrees were inferior to regular B.E. Degrees. The same were dismissed vide order dated 8th March 1991.
2.5 On 31st May 1994, an advertisement being No. 9/94 was issued by the TNPSC for direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers. This advertisement was challenged by several Junior Draughting Officers, Draughting Officers and Technical Assistants before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal) on the ground that their appointment should also be considered in the advertised posts in terms of abovementioned G.O. Nos. 1 and 88.
2.6 The Tribunal, vide order dated 17th April 1997, allowed the applications filed by Junior Draughting Officers and Draughting Officers, however, dismissed the applications filed by Technical Assistants. The Tribunal observed that the Technical Assistants are not part of feeder category from which recruitment by transfer can be made for the post of Assistant Engineers.
2.7 Thereafter, Association of Engineers, one of the appellants herein filed Writ Petition No. 7523 of 1997 before the Madras High Court challenging the above finding of the Tribunal qua the Junior Draughting Officers and Draughting Officers. The Technical Assistants never challenged the dismissal of their applications by the Tribunal. The High Court, vide order dated 6th November 2006, dismissed the said writ petition. In the year 2009, the said order of the High Court was challenged before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 995 of 2009. This Court, vide order dated 14th September 2017, dismissed the said appeal.
2.8 From 1999 till 2002, a total number of 491 vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineers were notified to be filled up. Out of the same, 369 vacancies were to be filled up by direct recruitment and the remaining 122 vacancies were to be filled up by recruitment by transfer. Out of the said 122 vacancies referable to the feeder categories for appointment by recruitment by transfer, 29 v
Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
A.K. Bhatnagar and Others vs. Union of India and Others
B. Thirumal vs. Ananda Sivakumar and Others
Sant Ram Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
Association of Engineers vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Narpat Singh and Others vs. Jaipur Development Authority and Another
Appointment – Court cannot undo settled position after long lapse of time.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the retrospective effect of a government order amending the Rules cannot nullify a previous judgment. Additionally, the Rules cannot be change....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that individuals appointed under the diploma quota cannot switch to the degree quota for further promotion, as determined by the interpretation of ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the promotion rules did not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the different cadres were not treated as equals, having....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the requisition for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) was sent in compliance with the statutory rules, and the Rules, 1968 p....
Amendments to service regulations cannot be given retrospective effect if they infringe upon accrued rights; such actions are arbitrary and violate principles of natural justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.