LAL. E.T Vs. S. RAJENDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed against the common judgment dtd. 17/12/2021 in WP(C)No. 23070 of 2021. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ appeals are as follows:-

(2.) The University had filed a counter affidavit stating that when Ext.P5 First Statutes were issued in 1976, there was only civil wing in the department of University and that it was only in 1981 that the Mechanical wing came in to existence as per Ext.R1(b) (SRO 623/1981 dtd. 6/4/1981) and the qualifications and method of appointment for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical) were fixed. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical) as per the provisions of Ext.R1(b) and that as per Ext.P7, the term 'Assistant Engineer ' wherever it occurs was substituted with 'Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) and that with Ext.P7 amendment, the feeder category for the post of Executive Engineer became Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) and that the qualifications for the post of Executive Engineer is B.Sc Degree in Engineering (Civil) or alternate qualification. It was also contended that the Civil and the Mechanical Engineering branches were entirely different with respect to the nature of works and that there is a separate seniority list maintained for both Civil and Mechanical branches and thus the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Executive Engineer is not tenable going by the Statute. The 4th respondent in the writ petition, who was promoted has since retired. The Executive Engineer appointed thereafter got impleaded in the writ petition as additional 5th respondent. The service details of the additional 5th respondent and the petitioner are as follows:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_191_LAWS(KER)4_2022_1.html</FRM>

(3.) Therefore, the 5th respondent contended that while the writ petitioner has 25 years' and 8 months of service, the 5th respondent has 32 years' and 11 months of service and he is due to retire on 31/5/2022. It is further submitted by the additional 5th respondent that a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering obtained by the writ petitioner cannot be treated as an equivalent qualification to B.Sc Degree in Engineering (Civil). The expression Assistant Engineer under Statute 3(2) has been amended as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) and therefore, the feeder category for the post of Executive Engineer can only be Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil). The 5th respondent thus urged to dismiss the writ petition and sustain his appointment as Executive Engineer.