Order passed by Government can not be held violative of Constitution.

G. Ramanujam, JJ.

1. Since the points involved are the same in all these cases, they are dealt with together.

2. Writ Appeal Nos. 854 and 855 of 1983 have been filed against the judgment rendered by Nainar Sundaram, J. in Writ Petition No. 1137 of 1980; the first one by the petitioner in the Writ Petition and the second by the 7th respondent therein. The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 854 of 1983 sought in Writ Petition No. 1137 of 1980 the issue a Writ of Declaration declaring Clause 2(c) of the Rules made in G.O. Ms. No. 1461, Home (Transport II) dated 26.6.1978 issued by the Tamil Nadu Government under which the ratio of promotion to the post of Regional Transport Officers has been reduced to 1 : 4 from 1 : 1 as between the administrative side and the technical side respectively of the Transport Department as unconstitutional as it contravenes Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. That Writ Petition was originally heard by Padmanabhan, J. who by his order dated 2.4.1982 allowed the Writ Petition and declared the above Clause 2(c) of the Rules as unconstitutional. Earlier in Writ Petition No. 2010 of 1979 filed by one M. Ebenezer, Superintendent, Office of the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruchirappalli the same rule was challenged as being viotative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. V. Ramaswamy, J. by his order dated 17th July, 1979, rejected the said contention and dismissed the Writ Petition. Writ Appeal No. 421 of 1979 was preferred as against the decision of V. Ramaswamy, J. While that Writ Appeal was pending respondents 1 to 3 in Writ Petition No. 1137 of 1980 which was disposed of by Padmanabhan, J. preferred Writ Appeal No. 375 of 1985 against the said order of Padmanabhan, J. There were other Writ appeals filed by the other respondents who have been brought on record subsequently and they were Writ Appeals Nos. 256 and 257 of 1982. All the said four writ appeals were heard by a Division Bench and at that stage the State Government filed as additional affidavit with the permission of the Court bringing in certain fresh facts as forming the basis for the reduction of the ratio of promotion complained of in the writ petitions and requested the Bench to take those factors also into consideration. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 1137 of 1980 and the respondent in Writ Appeal No. 375 of 1982 had submitted before the Bench that if these additional factors are to be taken into account, a reply affidavit has to be filed and there should be a re-hearing of the whole matter. At that stage the Division Bench felt that the correct course would be to set aside the orders of both Padmanabhan, J. in Writ Petition No. 1137 of 1980 and that of V. Ramaswami, J. in Writ Petition No. 2010 of 1979 and to remit the matter to the Writ Court for fresh and fuller consideration. It is in pursuance of the said remit order, Writ Petition No. 1137 of 1980 came to be heard afresh by Nainar Sundaram, J. Writ Petition No. 2010 of 1979 having been ordered to be posted for disposal after Writ Petition No. 1137 of 1980 is disposed of, it was not posted along with the other Writ Petition. Nainar Sundaram, J. after hearing the parties has chosen to dismiss the Writ Petition by his judgment dated 2.4.1982 on the ground that the grounds of attack put forward by the writ petitioner cannot legally be sustained. It is the said decision of Nainar Sundaram, J. which is under challenge in these two writ appeals.

3. The dispute between the parties relates to the procedure to be followed for making recruitment for the post of Regional Transport Officers (R.T.O. for short). In G.O. Ms.No. 566, Home, dated 18-2-1965 it was provided that recruitment to R.T.O. shall be made by transfer from the post of (1) Superintendents in the Secretariat in Home and Industries, Labour and Co-operation Departments. (2) Superintendents in the Office of the Transport Commissioner or in the Regional Transport Offices and (3) Motor Vehi