Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 4562
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
V. Parthiban, J.
M. Sithesparan - Appellant
Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1861 of 2011
Decided On : 28-04-2018
R. Gandhi, Adv., R.G. Narendhiran, Adv., J. Pothiraj, Adv.
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Agricultural Engineering Department – Employment and Service - Soil Conservation Officers - According to the petitioner, out of 54 persons promoted only 5 JDOs alone were considered for promotion and remaining were considered from other feeder category, namely, Asst. Soil Conservation Officers - Subsequently it appears that another proposal was submitted for purpose of providing promotional chances to Asst. Soil Conservation Officers who were hundreds in number and put in more than of service said proposal was considered by Government and issued Department whereby Assistant Soil Conservation Officers who acquired qualification of Diploma in Engineering at time of their initial appointment and who completed of service were upgraded as Junior Engineers. This was also done as one time measure - Criteria which was adopted for the purpose of upgrading the post of Asst. Soil Conservation Officers to that of Junior Engineer, was 20 years of service in the feeder category - grievance of the petitioners is that when such proposals were submitted and G.Os. were issued promoting several hundreds of Asst. Soil Conservation Officers, few of the Junior Engineers, Assistant Engineers and the petitioners who had put in of service as JDO have not been considered - According petitioners, many of Junior Officers/Asst. Soil Conservation Officers who had joined the Agriculture Engineering Department after them, had been granted promotion and they had been unjustly overlooked and left to languish in same post ever since from date of their initial appointment – Held, As regards the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that when Government had issued on basis of fact that the Officers who had served for more than to be promoted as they were stagnating in same post question of following proviso to Rule 3 does not arise at all may appear to be an attractive argument in the sense, but when facts and circumstances are critically examined, it would only demonstrate what the department has followed the principle of seniority strictly as envisaged in the Special Rules and admittedly, the persons who were promoted numbering vide have all acquired degrees much before the petitioners in 1994 and 1997 as against petitioners acquiring qualification in - Therefore this Court is unable to appreciate as to how such action on the part of official respondents can be held to be discriminatory or unreasonable violating Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India - As rightly contended by he learned Special Government Pleader that was issued as one time measure for promoting certain number of Officers without completely tilting the balance of ratio as provided for in Special Rules between direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer - Such exercise on part of department cannot be subject matter of controversy since the department had taken action only to extend benefit of one time promotion to certain number of persons and department had chosen to follow the seniority strictly as per proviso to Rule 3 - Although department has adopted yardstick of 20 years of service however facts and circumstances of the case would disclose that there were hundreds of Officers who had put in more than of service in feeder category and in view of the ratio provided under Special Rules it cannot be possible for the department to promote all Officers at one stroke who had completed of service - Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
V. Parthiban, J.
The present writ petition has been filed, seeking for the following relief:
"To issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the Letter No.Pa Aa Pa3/60303/2010 dated 7.12.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent herein, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioners as Assistant Engineers in Agricultural Engineering Department retrospectively from 27.7.2007 in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.312, Agriculture (AA3)/2007 dated 27.7.2007 fixing the seniority above the respondents 3 to 8 herein by taking into account the length of service of the petitioners with all monetary benefits, etc.
2. Both the petitioners herein are appointed as Junior Draughting Officers on 22.08.1986 and 16.07.1986 respectively in Agricultural Engineering Department. When they were appointed, they were in possession of Diploma in Civil and Rural Engineering and Diploma in Civil Engineering respectively and as such, they were qualified to be appointed as Junior Draughting Officers in Agricultural Engineering Department. Subsequently, both the petitioners appeared to have qualified in B.E. Degrees in 2004. According to the petitioners, they had put in 20 years of service as JDO and they had been languishing in the same post without any promotion all the years.
3. The services of the petitioners were governed by both the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Subordinate Service Rules and the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Agricultural Engineering Service. The next avenue of promotion from the post of JDO is the post of Assistant Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) which was classified as Class V category as per the Special Rules governing the service conditions of the petitioners. As per the Special Rules, panel has to be prepared from among the candidates who acquired B.E. Degrees on the date of acquiring their qualification. The service Rules which had come into force from 1st February 1981 provide for appointment to Class V category, namely, Assistant Engineer in Agricultural Engineering either by 'direct recruitment' or 'recruitment by transfer' from among the holders of the posts of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer (ASCO), Junior Draughting Officer, Agricultural Engineering Foreman, etc. in Tamil Nadu Agricultural Subordinate Service. Quota has also been fixed as between the 'direct recruitment' and 'recruitment by transfer', at 91:9 ratio, namely, 91 by direct recruitment and 9 by recruitment by transfer' respectively. As per proviso to Rule 3 of the Special Rules, for the appointment to the post of Class V category by recruitment by transfer, list shall be prepared with reference to seniority of the candidates based on the date of acquiring B.E.(Civil) or B.E.(Mechanical) Degree. This proviso appeared to have been added as per the amendment issued vide G.O. Ms. No. 582 Agriculture Department dated 9.11.1995, which had come into force from 9th November, 1995.
4. As stated above, the petitioner had put in more than 20 years of service as JDO. But like the petitioner, there were several Officers in the feeder category, had also put in more than 20 years, awaiting to be promoted to the next post of Asst. Engineer (Agricultural Engineering). Therefore, a proposal was submitted for grant of accelerated promotion to the eligible Officers from the feeder category, namely, JDO, Asst. Soil Conservation Officer, etc. On the basis of the proposal, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.312 Agriculture (AA3) Department dated 27.7.2007, by which, 54 B.E. qualified Assistant Soil Conservation Officers and JDOs who had completed 20 years of service in Agricultural Engineering Department, were promoted by 'recruitment by transfer' as one time measure.
5. According to the petitioner, out of 54 persons promoted, only 5 JDOs alone were considered for promotion and the remaining were considered from other feeder category, namely, Asst. Soil Conservation Officers. Subsequently, it appears that another proposal
