Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 684
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.M. SUNDRESH, J.
Engineering Diploma Association - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 18532 of 2013 & M.P. Nos. 1, 3 & 5 of 2013 & 1 of 2014
Decided on: 04-02-2015
For the Petitioner:R. Muthukumaraswamy, G. Sankaran, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, R. Ravichandran, Addl. Government Pleader, R3, N. Subramaniyan, R4, P. Rajendran, R5, R. Shanmughasundaram, S.C., L. Baskaran, T. Sellapandian, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between upgradation and promotion, and the application of relevant rules and principles to determine the nature of the proposed action.
Headnote:
Assistant Engineers - Agricultural Engineering Department - Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Engineering Services - Rule 2(b) - Upgradation of posts - Assistant Executive Engineers - Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Engineering Services - Rule 2(b)
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute regarding the upgradation of posts of Assistant Engineers to Assistant Executive Engineers in the Agricultural Engineering Department, governed by the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Engineering Services. The proposal for upgradation was made due to the stagnation of Assistant Engineers for more than 20 years without any possibility of promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proposal for upgradation was pending consideration with the first respondent and that the issue involved was upgradation, not promotion. The court directed the first respondent to pass appropriate final orders on the proposal within a specified period.
Issues: The main issue was whether the proposal involved upgradation or promotion, and whether the ratio stipulated in Rule 2(b) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Engineering Services should be followed for the upgradation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of promotion and upgradation as established in previous judgments to determine that the proposal involved upgradation alone, not the creation of additional posts or promotion of Assistant Engineers ahead of Junior Engineers.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with a direction to the first respondent to pass appropriate final orders on the proposal of upgradation within a specified period.
1. This Litigation is an extension of the previous litigations initiated either by the Assistant Engineers or Junior Engineers qua to the post of Assistant Engineer. To decide the issues raised, it is appropriate to understand the background facts.
1. Background Facts:-
The post of Assistant Engineer in the Agricultural Engineering Department is governed by the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Engineering Services. The post of Junior Engineer in the said Department is governed by the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Subordinate Services. The post of Assistant Engineer is filled up by the direct recruitment with the prescribed qualification of Engineering Degree. The post of Executive Engineer is filled up from the Diploma holders on promotion from the feeder categories. As both these posts are feeder categories to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, a ratio of 1:3:2 has been prescribed by the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Engineering Services under Rule 2(b) and the following is the order of rotation:
“(a) By direct recruitment;
(b) By promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer (AE);
(c) By recruitment by transfer from the post of Junior Engineer (AE);
(d) By promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer (AE);
(e) By recruitment by transfer from the post of Junior Engineer (AE);
(f) By promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer (AE).”
2.1. The ratio fixed was unsuccessfully challenged by both the Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers. Suffice it is to state that as on today, the ratio as fixed between them stands.
2.2 Taking into consideration of the stagnation of the Assistant Engineers for more than 20 years without any possibility of promotion, the second respondent sent its proposal to the first respondent on 28.12.2011. In the said proposal, the following reasons were assigned by the second respondent.
“The Superintending Engineers (AE) and the Executive Engineers (AE) of this department are touring officers. The Executive Engineers (AE) have to attend Collector's meetings often and have to co-ordinate with the district administration. At present the Executive Engineers (AE) are assited by Technical Assistants in the cadre of Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer (AE). Hence, induction of a post of Assistant Executive Engineer (AE) in the offices of Executive Engineer (AE) and Superintending Engineer (AE) will be very useful in this regard.
The Assistant Executive Engineer (AE) could be entrusted with the scrutiny of the estimate and other reports so that the respective Superintending Engineers (AE) and Executive Engineers (AE) are relieved of the work directly to the Technical Assistants who are in the cadre of Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer (AE).
The Assistant Executive Engineer (AE) can scrutiny the technical documents thoroughly and also can look after pay bills and other bills. This will allow the Superintending Engineers (AE) and Executive Engineers (AE) effectively monitor the vastly expanding progressive schemes like Agricultural Mechanization, Rainwater Harvesting Programmes and IAMWARM by touring extensively as the load of office work is taken care by the Assistant Executive Engineers (AE).
The Executive Engineers (AE) rapport with the district administration will be improved if they have frequent contact with the District Collector. Moreover more farmers meetings can be conducted to improve relationship with farmers.”
2.3. Accordingly, it was suggested that the present form of posting of Assistant Engineers/Junior Engineers in the post of the Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer may be dispensed with and the posts may be filled up with the Assistant Engineers, who are stagnated without promotions by relaxing ratio stipulated as in the Rule 2(b) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Agricultural Engineering Service.
2.4. After coming to know the said development, the petitioner made a request to the first respondent by the letter dated 03.01.2012 claiming the
