The Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be dealt with like an executive order as it is legislative in character. The competent authority has the power to prescribe relevant qualifications for appointment to the post, provided they are not unconstitutional.

K. Chandru, J.

Heard the arguments of Mr. R. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader representing the respondents 1 to 3 and have perused the records.

2. The petitioner is an unregistered association of Diploma Engineers working under the second respondent. After obtaining leave from this Court vide order dated 24. 2002 granted in W.P.M.P. 19151 of 2002, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Some Diploma Engineers, who were working under the second respondent in their individual capacity, filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. No. 11364 of 1983 seeking for a direction declaring the amendments made by the first respondent State to the Special Rules relating to Tamil Nadu Employment and Training Service issued vide G.O. Ms. No.49 Employment Service Department dated 29. 1983 and by the introduction of ratio of 1:1:1 among the Degree and Diploma holders in Engineering, S.S.L.C. with Trade Certificate holders and 8th Standard with Trade Certificate for the purpose of recruiting to the post of Foreman Instructor / Training Officer as unconstitutional. On the constitution of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, during December 1988, the said writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal by virtue of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and was taken on file as T.A. No. 930 of 1989.

4. A reply affidavit was filed on behalf of the first respondent stating that the policy decision was taken in the National Council for Training in Vocational Trade so as to promote Trade Certificate holders also to the level of Group Instructors, which was afterwards, redesignated as Training Officers. The Association of the Certificate holders also was making persistent demand for granting promotional avenues. In fact, the said Association got itself impleaded as the third respondent. It was further stated by the official respondents before the Tribunal that it was well within the competence of the Government being the appointing authority to prescribe appropriate qualifications including for promotional avenues taking into account the interest of various categories of staff. It was stated that lowering of the qualifications for the promotional post can be done without affecting the Training programme and it was done to help many of the employees who may not get any promotion during their entire tenure.

5. It was also stated that the promotion to the post of Training Officer is a selection post as per the Special Rules and there was no hostile discrimination made against the Degree or Diploma holders in Engineering and only with a view to give a fair share of the promotional post, the ratio of 1:1:1 was fixed. It was also contended that the petitioners before the Tribunal cannot deprive the promotional avenues given to the Trade Certificate holders.

6. The matter was dealt with by the Tribunal and the Tribunal heard the matter along with T.A. No. 930 of 1989 and passed a common order dated 01.02.2002. The Tribunal held that there was nothing illegal or improper in fixing the ratio between various feeder categories for the promotion and it does not offend any constitutional provisions. None of the petitioners before the Tribunal had come before this Court against the said order. On the contrary, an unregistered association claiming to represent their interest, after taking leave from this Court, has filed the present writ petition. The maintainability of the writ petition at their instance is highly doubtful in the light of the decisions rendered by this Court including a Full Bench (See: AIR 1989 MADRAS 224 FB).

7. In any event, the main contention of the petitioner Association placing reliance upon the earlier order dated 28. 1983 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 3610 and 5240 of 1982 [K. Jawaharlal and 17 others v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others] may not have relevance. In that case, the order issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 2102