The main legal point established in the judgment is that the retrospective effect of a government order amending the Rules cannot nullify a previous judgment. Additionally, the Rules cannot be changed in the midst of the recruitment process, and any proviso that violates the ratio of promotion between different cadres can be struck down.

JUDGMENT

Common Order

Munishwar Nath Bhandari, CJ.

1. In the batch of five writ petitions, a challenge is made to G.O.Ms.No.34, Agriculture (AA3) Department, dated 17.2.2015, amending Rule 2(b) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Engineering Service [for brevity, “the Special Rules”]

2. Pending the aforesaid writ petitions, an interim order was passed on 31.8.2015 in W.P.No.27211 of 2015 to the following effect:

“Challenge in this writ petition is to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.34, Agriculture (AA3) Department dated 17.02.2015 by which an amendment has been issued to the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Engineering Service Rules, giving retrospective effect to the ratio of 1:3:1 for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, from 1 st April 2011

 2. Material on record shows that earlier when Tamil Nadu Agricultural Engineers Association represented by its President and Junior Engineers filed W.P.Nos.15795 and 17532 of 2015, by a common order dated 30.06.2015, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has ordered notice of motion, returnable in three weeks and in the meantime, directed that the respondents shall not do anything that would take away the accrued rights of the persons, while giving retrospective effect to the impugned amendment.

3. Challenge made by the petitioner in the present writ petition, is on the same lines. Following the abovesaid order dated 30.06.2015, notice of motion is ordered in the present writ petition, returnable by 21.09.2015. Private notice is also permitted. There shall be a similar direction in the present writ petition, as passed in the abovesaid writ petitions.

4. Post on 21.09.2015.”

[emphasis supplied]

3. Alleging violation of the aforesaid interim order, Contempt Petition Nos.1682 of 2019 and 2294 of 2016 have been filed by one of the petitioners in W.P.No.27211 of 2015.

4. Out of five writ petitions, three writ petitions have been filed by the Junior Engineers in the Agricultural Engineering Department and two writ petitions have been filed by the associations, whose members are predominantly Junior Engineers.

5. The post of Assistant Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Engineering Department is governed by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Engineering Service and the post of Junior Engineer is governed by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Engineering Subordinate Service. Admittedly, Assistant Engineers are Degree Holders, whereas Junior Engineers are Diploma Holders and the next avenue of appointment for both the cadres is to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. Rule 2(b) of the Special Rules, as it existed prior to the filing of the writ petitions, prescribed the ratio of 3:2 between Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers for appointment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. As per the Special Rules, the petitioners were eligible to be included in the panel for appointment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in the panel years 2012-2013 to 2014-2015.

6. The ratio of 3:2 was challenged by the Junior Engineers (Diploma Holders) before this court contending that they should be given equal quota. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge, however, the Division Bench reversed the said judgment and the same was confirmed by the Supreme Court in T.R.Kothandaraman v. T.N.Water Supply and Drainage Board, (1994) 6 SCC 282.

7. While the Engineering Graduates Association filed W.P.No.600 of 2006 seeking amendment of the Special Rules, an Assistant Engineer filed W.P.No.11772 of 2009 seeking to declare Rule 2(b) of the Special Rules as illegal. The challenge made in those writ petitions went up to the Supreme Court and ultimately, on remand, the writ petitions were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 24.7.2013 [P.Sundar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others, (2013) 7 MLJ 100] and the ratio of 3:2 fixed in Rule 2(b) of the Special Rules between Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers for appointment to t