Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. DHANAPALAN & G. CHOCKALINGAM, JJ.
R.K. Ravindran & Others – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary, Public Works Department, Chennai & Others – Respondent
W.A. No. 917 of 2011
Decided On : 25-02-2015
Rectification of Mistake - Engineering Service - Rule 35(aa) of the General Rules of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, Article 14 of the Constitution of India - The court upheld the impugned Government Order, stating that the conferment of benefit given to the third respondent was in accordance with Rule 35(aa) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, which is a statutory rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The court also held that the conferment of benefit given to the third respondent under the impugned order is not depending upon the validity of appointment of B.N.Ramachandran. Even assuming that the said B.N.Ramachandran has not completed four years of service, the fact remains that he is junior to the third respondent and therefore, the conferment of benefit given to the third respondent under Rule 35 (aa) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, has to be taken as a rectification of mistake as per Rule 35(f). The conduct of the petitioners in questioning the benefit conferred on the third respondent which can only be considered as a rectification of mistake amounts to claiming negative equality, is not permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioners are entitled for certain benefits on their own right and claim right as per Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the same can be considered to be a positive equality. But, on the facts of the present case, by relying upon the appointment of some third parties, questioning the rectification of mistake done for appointment of the third respondent, in my considered view, is not correct, for the simple reason that Article 14 guarantees equality before law and not equality in subverting law and if the petitioners are entitled to, they can make a justifiable claim by positive conduct.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a challenge to the appointment and seniority of engineering personnel in the Tamil Nadu Engineering Department. The appellants questioned the appointment and seniority of the third respondent, who was appointed as Junior Engineer and later re-designated as Assistant Engineer, based on the recommendation of the Chief Engineer (General) and the selection by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC). The appellants argued that the appointment of the third respondent was not valid and that the conferment of benefit on the third respondent was not proper.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment and re-designation of the third respondent were in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations. The court held that the conferment of benefit on the third respondent was a rectification of mistake as per the rules and that the petitioners' conduct in questioning the benefit conferred on the third respondent amounted to claiming negative equality, which is not permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the appointment and seniority of the third respondent, as well as the applicability of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the context of the conferment of benefit on the third respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Rule 35(aa) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, as well as the application of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court held that the conferment of benefit on the third respondent was a rectification of mistake as per the rules and that the petitioners' conduct in questioning the benefit conferred on the third respondent amounted to claiming negative equality, which is not permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the impugned Government Order and held that there was no illegality or perversity in the impugned Government Order. The court directed the State Government to circulate a draft seniority list, invite objections, and publish the final seniority list within a period of six months.
V. Dhanapalan, J.
1. Heard Mr.N.Subramaniyan, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.S.Namasivayam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5. It is represented by the learned counsel for the appellants that the third respondent died subsequent to the filing of the Writ Appeal and so, no notice is required to be sent to him.
2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 07.04.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.2448 of 2007, wherein as to the challenge made by the appellants/writ petitioners to G.O.(3D).No.56, Public Works (B2) Department, dated 22.03.2002 on the file of the first respondent and for consequential direction to the first and second respondents to reckon the third respondent as Assistant Engineer only based on the selection by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for short, 'the TNPSC') for the year 1985-86 and reckon his seniority in the category of Assistant Engineer as assigned by the TNPSC, the learned single Judge, after giving due consideration to the questions raised on the issue that arose before him, dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the impugned G.O.
3. It is seen that the appellants/writ petitioners questioned the impugned G.O.(3D).No.56, Public Works (B2) Department, dated 22.03.2002, by which the Government complied with the request of the third respondent based on the recommendation of the Chief Engineer (General) and appointed the third respondent who was holding the post of Draughtsman Grade-2 as Junior Engineer with effect from 25.08.1982 on par with his junior Thiru.B.N.Ramachandran and further ordered that he be re-designated as Assistant Engineer with effect from 13.12.1984, the date following the date of last examination leading to his acquiring B.E. Degree by recruitment by transfer for the purpose of seniority in the categories, and however, stipulated that he will not be eligible for any arrears of pay and allowances consequent on his appointment as Junior Engineer from 25.08.1982 and his re-designation as Assistant Engineer from 13.12.1984 ordered now instead of from 09.08.1986 as ordered in the letter in Lr.Ms.No.521, PWD, dated 27.03.1991, referred to in Reference No.5 therein and the Chief Engineer (General) was directed to re-fix his seniority in the categories of Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer with reference to the order issued as above.
4. The appellants/writ petitioners and the respondents 3 to 5 were all engineering personnel in the Tamil Nadu Engineering Department, who are governed by the Special Rules to the Tamil Nadu Engineering Service as well as the Special Rules to the Tamil Nadu Engineering Subordinate Service. The category of Assistant Engineer and above up to the Chief Engineer, are covered under the Tamil Nadu Engineering Service, which is a State Service and the categories of Junior Engineer, Draughtsman and below are coming under the Tamil Nadu Engineering Subordinate Service.
5. The question of re-designation of the respective categories was gone into by the learned single Judge and it was observed based on the counter affidavit filed by the first and second respondents that the question of drawing a panel in the matter of re-designation regarding the appointment of Assistant Engineer by recruitment by transfer from the post of Junior Engineer on acquiring B.E. degree, does not arise, since the individuals were allowed to work in the same station and to do the same work. Therefore, it was further observed by the learned single Judge that as per Rule 35(aa) of the General Rules of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, when a junior appointed by a particular method of recruitment, happened to be appointed to another service and category earlier than the senior appointed by the same method of recruitment, the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
