R. Banumathi, J. & T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

1. The issue involved in these Writ Petitions relates to the fixation of ratio for the promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Engineering Service between graduate engineers and diploma holders. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P (C) Nos. 34239 to 34240 of 2011 dated 20.2.2013, these Writ Petitions have been remanded to this Court for being heard and being disposed of without being influenced by any of the observations made in these Writ Petitions in the earlier orders passed by the learned Single Judge dated 8.3.2010 and the order of the Division Bench, dated 29.9.2011.

2. The Writ Petitions have been filed for a declaration to declare Rule 2(b) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Agricultural Engineering Service Rules, as being illegal and unconstitutional and to direct the official respondents to consider the Writ Petitioners for notional promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer with retrospective effect with monetary benefits.

3. The facts which are necessary for resolving the controversy in issue, is as stated hereunder: The Writ Petitioners are Engineering Graduates, who are working as Assistant Engineers in the Agricultural Engineering Department. The Private Respondents who impleaded themselves in the Writ Petitions are Diploma Holders and Association of Diploma Holders. The petitioners were initially appointed as Assistant Engineers temporarily by direct recruitment and their services were regularised during 1990 with effect from the date of their initial temporary appointments. The grievance is that though they have completed 20 years of service as Assistant Engineers are stagnating without promotion on account of the Junior Engineers who are Diploma Holders who joined as Junior Engineers later to the petitioners, were promoted as Assistant Executive Engineers on account of Rule 2(b) of the Special Rules prescribing a ratio of 3:2 between Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers for promotion as Assistant Executive Engineers. Therefore, they have challenged Rule 2(b) as ultra vires.

4. Mr.N.Subramaniyan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the category of Assistant Engineer coming under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Engineering Service is a State Service and the Junior Engineers who are Diploma Holders are coming under Tamil Nadu Agricultural Engineering Subordinate Service, a subordinate service. Though both the categories come under two different service, they occupy the same post as Section Officer, in which 25% of the vacancies are earmarked for Junior Engineers and the balance 75% for Assistant Engineers. Thus, the initial appointment to the posts i.e. Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer are made in the ratio 3:1 respectively. The next promotional post is Assistant Executive Engineer and both Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers are eligible for promotion and recruitment by transfer respectively. The Rule also provides for direct recruitment to the category of Assistant Engineer, the ratio being 1:3:2 (direct recruitment: promotion from Assistant Engineer: by recruitment by transfer from among the holder of the post of Junior Engineer in Tamil Nadu Agricultural Subordinate Service). It is submitted that though the ratio for initial appointment was 3:1, due to appointment of large number of Junior Engineers, a ratio of 3:2 was fixed and this ratio though fixed was not implemented, and the ratio of 3:3 was fixed and implemented till 1988. On account of which, persons who were working below the Assistant Engineer were promoted as Junior Engineer and further promoted as Assistant Executive Engineers, when the Assistant Engineers were stagnating without promotion.

5. The learned counsel drew our attention to the factual details to establish this position and contended that such anomaly clearly offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that o