M.M. Sundresh, J.

1. The unsuccessful writ petitioners, who failed before the learned single Judge in their challenge made to the impugned amendment to the Tamil Nadu Municipal Engineering Service Rules 1997, pertaining to Rule 3, which fixes the ratio of 3:1 between the Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, are the appellants before us.

2. The facts in brief:

2.1. The appellants are Diploma-holders. They are working as Junior Engineers with respondents 1 and 2. For the post of Junior Engineer, the feeder category is the post of Draughtsman. Accordingly, the appellants have been promoted from the feeder category of Draughtsman to the category of Junior Engineers. The private respondents before us are direct recruits appointed as Assistant Engineers. They hold Engineering Degrees being the pre-requisite for the said post. A Junior Engineer can become an Assistant Engineer on acquiring an Engineering Degree. The post of Junior Engineer comes under the category-I of Clause-I of the Tamil Municipal Engineering Subordinate Service Rules 1970. The post of Assistant Engineer comes under category-IV of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Engineering Service Rules 1997. Therefore, both the posts are distinct and different with their respective basic qualifications. The ratio of 3:1 has been fixed between the Assistant Engineers and the Junior Engineers, by taking the two posts as a whole. This was introduced on 24.12.1997 by way of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Engineering Service Rules 1997. Earlier a Government Order was issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.1021, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 05.12.1988, expressing its desire to have the ratio of 3:1 between the degree and Diploma-holders working as Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers to the promotional post of Assistant Executive Engineer. However, this was not incorporated in 1997 Rules, which according to the first respondent, is by way of inadvertent, even though the said decision has been implemented in all the other wings of the State Government. Thereafter, by an impugned amendment made to Rule 3, which deals with the promotional post of Assistant Executive Engineer from the feeder category of Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer, the ratio of 3:1 has been fixed. Now this amendment is under challenge before us, by the appellants who have been working as Junior Engineers(diploma holders). The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions by holding that the issues raised therein are covered by the earlier orders. Aggrieved against the same, the present writ appeals are filed.

2.2. Pending proceedings, all the Assistant Engineers, who have been promoted as Executive Engineers, have filed impleading petitions and the same were allowed. Now all the parties, including those who would be affected if the impugned rules are declared as ultra vires, are before us. Orders have also been passed to the effect that any promotion made would be subject to the result of the proceedings.

3. Submissions of the Appellants:

3.1. The learned counsels appearing for the appellants would submit that the ratio of 3:1 had already been followed in the category of Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer. They have become one class. Therefore, in law, there cannot be further classification. The classification made does not have any nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The ratio laid down by the Honourable Apex Court does not apply to the case of hand. The appellants were made to go through the hierarchy as against the private respondents, who are direct recruits. Even as per Rules, the appellants will have to put in 10 years of service to be eligible for consideration to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. Therefore the impugned Rule will have to be declared as unconstitutional.

3.2. A second submission has been made by the learned counsels on the ground that in any case, the impugned Rule cannot be made applica