Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 3637
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
Tamil Nadu Engineering Diploma Holders Association, Represented by its General Secretary, S. Geethapathy
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Home (Transport II A) Department & Another
W.P.No.9539 of 2009
Decided on : 16-08-2011
For the Petitioner:K. Rajkumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 - V. Subbiah, Spl. G.P., R2 - K. Surendranath, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authority framing Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution can prescribe necessary educational qualifications for the post, and if there is a conflict with any other law, the Special Law will prevail over the Rules.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicle Inspector - Challenge to Rule 19 (b) (ii) of the Tamilnadu State and Subordinate Service Rules - Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Central Motor Vehicles Rules, Tamilnadu Transport Subordinate Service Rules - Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules - Special Qualifications - General Rules - Educational Qualifications - Central Government's notification - Diploma Holders vs. Graduate Engineers - Special Rules vs. General Rules - Article 309 of the Constitution - Conflict between Special Law and Rules - MGEQ - Dismissal of writ petition
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner Association challenged Rule 19 (b) (ii) of the Tamilnadu State and Subordinate Service Rules as inoperative, unconstitutional, and contrary to the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Central Motor Vehicles Rules, and the Tamilnadu Transport Subordinate Service Rules. The petitioner contended that the Rules did not prescribe any qualification such as Graduation in Engineering for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II and that the State Government cannot deviate from the Central Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the challenge made in the writ petition was thoroughly misconceived and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues involved the conflict between the Special Rules and the General Rules, the authority of the State Government to prescribe educational qualifications, and the eligibility of Graduate Engineers for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unless the Rules are specific with reference to higher qualification, the question of Graduate Engineers being debarred from appearing for the recruitment drive will not arise. The court also emphasized that the chances of the members of the petitioner Association being reduced by Graduate Engineers participating in the recruitment process cannot be a ground to challenge the Service Rules.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
1. The petitioner Association is an Association of Engineering Diploma Holders, represented by its General Secretary. The Association has come forward to file the present writ petition, seeking to challenge Rule 19 (b) (ii) of the Tamilnadu State and Subordinate Service Rules as inoperative, unconstitutional, arbitrary and ultravires of the constitution of India and contrary to the Motor vehicles Act 1988 read with (ii) Central Motor Vehicles Rules and the Tamilnadu Transport Subordinate Service Rules in so far as it relates to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Gr.II is concerned and consequently forbear the respondents from in any manner considering or recruiting the candidates possessing higher qualification other than the one prescribed in the Special rules for Tamilnadu State Transport Subordinate Service for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Gr.II in the ensuing and future selections.
2. The writ petition was admitted on 20.05.2009. Pending the writ petition, the application for interim injunction in M.P.No.1 of 2009 was dismissed, but however, it was made clear that any appointment made was subject to the result of the writ petition.
3. The petitioner also filed M.P.No.1 of 2010 seeking for a direction to the respondents to maintain Status Quo as on the date of the filing of the MP, namely on 18.08.2010 in so far as the recruitment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II (for short MVI Grade II) is concerned. That application was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was an Association and the relief claimed in the application was beyond the scope of the main writ petition.
4. On notice from this Court, on behalf of the first respondent, a counter affidavit dated 01.10.2009 was filed. The second respondent had also filed a counter affidavit dated Nil (2009).
5. It is claimed by the petitioner that their Association was a registered Association under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and its Registration No. was 280/2008. It was also claimed by them that the post of MVI Grade II is governed by Tamil Nadu Transport Sub-ordinate Service Rules. The mode of appointment is by way of direct recruitment. The educational qualifications set out in the Rule is as follows:-
"Educational Qualifications:
(i) Minimum General Educational Qualification prescribed in the schedule to General Rules.
(ii) Diploma in Automobile or Mechanical Engineering (3 years course).
(iii) Experience of having worked for a period of not less than one year both on vehicles fitted with petrol Engine and vehicle fitted with Diesel Engine on a full time basis in an Automobile workshop.
(iv) Must hold a Driving licence to drive motor cycle Heavy goods vehicle, Heavy passenger motor vehicles and must have experience in driving Heavy Transport vehicle for a period of not less than six months provided preference shall be given to those who possess post graduate Diploma in Automobile Engineering."
6. Therefore, it was stated by the petitioner Association that the Rules do not prescribe any qualification such as Graduation in Engineering for the post of MVI Grade II. Even the preferential qualification is only a Post Graduate Diploma in Automobile Engineering. Notwithstanding the same, the second respondent TNPSC had issued a notification vide its Advertisement No.187 dated 24.02.2009 inviting applications for the post of MVI Grade II. As per the said notification, the candidates are required to have the Educational qualification as per the Rules set out above or any equivalent qualification.
7. The petitioner contended that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Rules have been framed by the Central Government known as Central Motor Vehicle Rules. The Rules also prescribed the qualifications for the Motor Vehicle Inspector as what was set out above. Since the Motor Vehicles Inspector appointed by the State Government has to discharge functions under the Motor Vehicles Act, even the State Government while framing the Rules under
