PER ARUN KUMAR GOEL. JUDGE

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in O.W.P. No. 667/ 97. By means of impugned judgment, it was directed that the respondents authorities would treat the writ petition as a representation and take such decision as is permissible under law within a period of six months. This period was to commence from the date, when copy of the order passed by the Court was made available to the authorities alongwith the writ petition and annexure. On decision being taken it was to be indicated to the counsel for the petitioner. It is this decision, which has been questioned in this appeal by the appellants, who are the original petitioners in the writ petition filed by them.

The appellants had questioned note no. 3 appended to the Schedule annexed with SRO 180 of 1997 dated 26.05.1997, whereby ratio of 1:3 was provided for recruitment between degree holders and diploma holders engineers to the post of Junior Engineers Grade-ll.

Sum and substance of the pleadings of the appellants urged in the writ petition was that higher qualification and better professional service should have been the criteria taken into account by the authorities concerned while framing of SRO thus instead of ratio 1:3 for the post of Junior Engineer Grade II Sum and substance of the pleadings of the appellants urged in the writ petition was that higher qualification and better professional service should be been the criteria taken into account by the authorities concerned while framing of SRO, thus instead of ratio 1:3 for the post of Junior Engineer Grade-ll between Degree holders and diploma holders, it should have infact been 3:1. The basis for such claim by the appellants was that they obtained their degree after six years of their matriculation. On the other hand, the diploma holders get their degree after three years of their matriculation. Thus the number of diploma holders is doubled during the period, one batch of degree holders comes out of this Institution.

2. Discrimination was the other ground put up in support of the petition and pendency of SWP No. 533/88 was urged as an additional ground for the grant of relief prayed for. Having made representations to the government, which remains unattended compelled them to approach the court in the writ petition. On the other hand, case of the respondent state is that the writ petition is not maintainable as there is no violation of any legal, constitutional or statutory right as claimed by the appellants. While elaborating its cause further it was pleaded that the post now designated as Junior Engineer was earlier designated as Sectional Officer and prior to it overseer. This post was in fact manned by Diploma holders and keeping in view the number of degree holders and keeping in view the number of degree holders coming out of the colleges, ratio of 1:3 was fixed with a view to provide an additional entry point to them. Infact degree holders are entitled to be recruited as Assistant Engineers through Public Service Commission, which is the entry point for them. This entry point is the exclusive right available to the degree holders, whereas 20 out of 100 posts of Assistant Engineers are -meant for Departmental Promotees from amongst Diploma holders to this post having requisite number of years/ service as Junior Engineer. Remaining 80 posts go to the degree holders. It has further been pointed out that the matter had been receiving attention of the Government on the representations made by different Associations of degree holders and diploma holders and a Committee was constituted to examine the matter. The recommendations made by the Committee were accepted by the Government except a few points therein, which lead to the issuance of Government Order No. G€stt-13/87 on 29.06.1987. This was protested to by the students as well as graduate Engineers. Associations in the State, as according to them recruitment of all the Graduate Eng

Click Here to Read the rest of this document