+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 26.11.2025 Pronounced on : 04.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN WP.No.31997 of 2023

1.V.Sivakumar

2.K.Muthumani ... Petitioners Vs.

1.THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-09

2.THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF (WRO)

CUM CHIEF ENGINEER (GENERAL), WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI-05. ... Respondents PRAYER:

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in proceedings letter Nos.5594/ A2/ 2014-8 and 5594/ A2/ 2014-10 dated 22.01.2015 and quash the same and direct the respondents to promote the petitioners as Assistant Executive Engineer retrospectively in a panel of the year 2010-2011 and 2013-2014 as per Rule 5 a(ii) of Special Rules of the Tamilnadu Engineering Service under 5th vacancy(every 20th vacancy in the panel) quota earmarked for Junior Engineer promoted from Draughtsman / Overseer category with all service and attended benefits within a stipulated period For Petitioners : Mr.M.Loganathan For Respondents : Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar, Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 22.01.2015 thereby rejecting the request made by the petitioners seeking promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer, in the panel of the year 2010-2011 and 2013-2014 respectively.

2. The petitioners were Diploma holders and they were appointed to the post of Irrigation Inspector. Subsequently, they were promoted to the post of Overseer, Junior Engineer and thereafter re- designated as Assistant Engineer. Now they have been promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. Their promotions and regularisations are subject to the outcome of original application in OA.No.1552 of 2003, which was subsequently transferred to this Court and re-numbered as WP.No.17351 of 2007 filed by the Association of Engineers challenging the proceedings of the Government dated 31.03.2003 and 09.04.2003 on the 3:1 ratio prescribed for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The petitioners subsequently acquired the Bachelor of Engineering degree and they were eligible to be promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer from the year 2009. While being so, the second respondent cancelled their regularisation by an order dated 13.12.2010 on account of the above said case. Therefore, it was challenged before this Court in WP.No.2158 of 2011 and the same was allowed by an order dated 08.10.2013, thereby directing the respondents to restore their regularisation order. Pending the case, the names of the petitioners were deferred while drawing the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer of the year 2010-2011. Subsequently the said OA.No.1552 of 2003 was dismissed by an order dated 27.08.2013 and even then, the request of the petitioners to add them in the panel for the year 2010-2011 was not considered . Subsequently another panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer was issued in the year 2013-2014 without considering the petitioners’

names.

3. Therefore, the petitioners filed writ petition in WP.No.5946 of 2014 challenging the panel insofar as non inclusion of them. It was allowed by an order dated 08.08.2014 by this Court thereby directing to include their names in the current panel with liberty to claim promotion from anterior date. However, their request for promotion from anterior date was rejected by the first respondent by the impugned letter dated 22.01.2015 for the reason that the category of Draughtsman alone is eligible to be promoted.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned letter stating that the category of Draughtsman alone shall be eligible to be promoted is totally baseless to the effect that as per Rule 5 of the Special Rules for the Tamilnadu En