V BALASUBRAMANIAM Vs. TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeals arise out of three petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution bearing Writ Petitions 1367, 1389 and 1448 of 1973 on the file of the High Court of Madras. The appellant V. Balasubramaniam was the petitioner in Writ Petition 1389 of 1973 and S. Swaminathan and S. Suruli were the petitioners in the other two writ petitions. All of them were working as Supervisors in the Engineering Subordinate Service of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). The Board was established under the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The posts of Assistant Engineers (now called as Assistant Executive Engineers) in the Engineering Officers Service of the Board were to be filled up either by direct recruitment or by promotion from the cadre of Junior Engineers possessing the qualifications prescribed for a Junior Engineer or from the cadres of Supervisors, Head Draftsmen and Draftsmen Grade-I. According to the appellants the regulations framed by the Board which had received the approval of the State Government prescribed that in order to be eligible to be promoted to the cadre of Assistant Engineers a Junior Engineer should have put in service as Junior Engineer for not less than five years and that a Supervisor should have put in service as Supervisor for not less than ten years. This difference between the Junior Engineers and the Supervisors was due to the minimum educational qualifications prescribed for entry into those posts. A degree in Engineering or an equivalent qualification had been prescribed for entry into the cadre of Junior Engineers and a diploma in Engineering or any equivalent qualification was the minimum qualification prescribed for entry into the cadre of Supervisors. The grievance of the appellants and other Supervisors was that respondents 2 to 11 in these appeals (who were respondents 3 to 12 in the writ petitions) and one C. J. Jayachandran, who had been impleaded as respondent 2 in the writ petitions, who were working as Junior Engineers had been promoted to the cadre of Assistant Engineers even though they had not put in five years of service in the cadre of Junior Engineers contrary to the regulations of the Board and that the appellants and some other Supervisors who were eligible to be promoted as Assistant Engineers had not been promoted to the cadre of Assistant Engineers. They, therefore, approached the High Court by filing the abovementioned petitions for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Board to consider the claims of the appellants and other Supervisors who were eligible to be promoted to the 11 posts of Assistant Engineers in the place of respondents 2 to 11 and C. J. Jayachandran, who had been impleaded as respondent 2 in the writ petitions. The writ petitions were opposed by the Board and the Junior Engineers who had been impleaded as respondents in the said writ petitions. The State Government was impleaded as a respondent to the writ Petitions by the learned single Judge who heard the writ petitions. After hearing all the parties, the learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions by his common judgment delivered on 30-1-1974 declaring that the promotion of respondents 2 to 11 and C.J. Jayachandran as Assistant Engineers was in violation of the requirements of the regulations and directed the Board to fill up the posts to which respondents 2 to 11 and C.J. Jayachandran had been promoted according to the regulations. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge the Board and the Junior Engineers whose promotions had been set aside by the learned single Judge preferred in all seven appeals being Writ Appeals Nos. 175, 228, 229, 238 and 263-265 of 1974 before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench allowed the appeals by its judgment dt. 25-11-1974 on a ground entirely different from the grounds which had been urged in the course of the writ petitions to which we will advert to hereafter and dismissed the writ petitions. These seven appeals by special leave have been filed against the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court.

(2.) It is necessary at this stage to set out briefly the relevant provisions of law and the contentions urged by the parties. Chapter IV of the Act which is entitled 'Officers and Members of the Staff of the Board' contains provisions relating to the appointment of the employees of the Board and their conditions of service. Section 16 of the Act provides that the Board may appoint a Secretary, a Housing Board Engineer and such other officers and servants as it considers necessary for the efficient performance of its functions. Section 17 of the Act which deals with the conditions of service of officers and servants of the Board reads thus:

(3.) Section 18 of the Act contains the provisions relating to promotions and punishment of the officers and servants of the Board. The material part of S. 18 reads thus: