The court emphasized the importance of compliance with court orders and the need to consider eligibility and qualifications in accordance with the rules.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer : Contempt Petition filed Under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondents for committing Contempt of Court of the order dated 08.08.2014 in W.P.No.5946 of 2014.)

1. The Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the respondents for committing Contempt of Court of the order dated 08.08.2014 in W.P.No.5946 of 2014.

2. The operative portion of the order passed by this Court reads as under:

“5. I have gone through the judgment rendered in W.P.(MD).Nos.2046 to 2048 of 2006 dated 12.11.2009 and the petitioners are also similarly placed and therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to be given promotion, following the same order.

6. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to include the names of the petitioners in the current panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, and the petitioners are at liberty to claim promotion from their anterior date, if they are so entitled to. It is also made clear that the respondents are directed to include the names of the petitioners in the current panel, if the petitioners satisfy the other legal requirements and if there is no other disqualifications, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

3. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners mainly contended that the order passed by this Court is to be read along with the order passed in W.P.(MD). Nos.2046 to 2048 of 2006 dated 12.11.2009, which was also a similar case.

4. The contempt petitioners had completed 10 years of service in the Post of Junior Engineer and therefore, they should be fixed in the quota allotted for the Diploma holders for promotion to the Post of Assistant Executive Engineer directly. When the petitioners were fully qualified and completed 10 years of service as required under the relevant rules, the respondents have not considered the name of the petitioners for inclusion in the panel and for promotion and thus, the respondents have committed contempt of court wilfully.

5. The petitioners have drew the attention of this Court with reference to the orders passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, wherein, the issues were discussed and a direction was issued to promote the petitioners therein by way of transfer of service to the Post of Assistant Executive Engineers, if they satisfy the other legal requirements and if there is no other disqualification. When the contempt petitioners are also fully qualified and satisfy the requirements contemplated under the rules, the case of the petitioners was willfully not considered by the respondents.

6. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contentions by stating that the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualifications as per the rules in force. The petitioners have not completed 10 years of service with reference to the panel of the year 2013-14. In this regard, the Government has passed an order in letter dated 22.01.2015 addressed to the contempt petitioners, which was acknowledged by the contempt petitioners. Thus, the respondents have not committed any contempt of Court.

7. The respondents have further filed a Compliance Report, categorically stating that the eligibility of the petitioners have been examined based on the existing Rule Provisions i.e., as per Rule 2(c)(ii), 22(c)(iii) and Rule 5 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Engineering Services and Tamil Nadu Engineering Subordinate Services and found that the petitioners were not reached the zone of elevation by recruitment by transfer to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer and many seniors to them are still awaiting their due turn for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer.

8. The respondents have further stated that the name of the petitioners will