K T SENTHILARASU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ appeals challenge a common order of the learned single Judge of this Court made in W.P. Nos. 9093 and 8870 of 2008 whereby the writ petitions were dismissed.

(2.) The Court heard the learned counsel on either side and looked into all the materials available,

(3.) The writ petitioners sought the relief of declaration that the appointments of the respondents 3 to 23 as Assistant Divisional Engineers (ADEs) is illegal, void and unconstitutional and also direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to revert the respondents 3 to 23 to the post of Junior Engineers and further direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to give retrospective notional promotion to the writ petitioners as Assistant Divisional Engineers without following 3 :1 ratio between Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers, if Junior Engineers who rendered 10 years of service after becoming Junior Engineer, are not available, from the date on which the Junior Engineers who are junior to petitioners, were appointed as Assistant Divisional Engineers, alleging that the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer (ADE) has been governed by the Special Rules to Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service; that the said post is made from the Assistant Engineers (AE) who possess not less than five years of service by promotion, and from the Junior Engineers (JE) with not less than ten years of service as JE or Draughtsman or not less than eighteen years of service as Overseer, JE or Draughtsman by recruitment by transfer in the ratio of 3 : 1; that the appointment is being made as per Rule 9(a) and (b) and 10(b)(2)(a) and (b) or 10(b)(3)(a) and (b) of the Engineering Service Rules; that the proviso to Rule 10 stipulating 10 years Draughtsman's service for a JE shall mean the service rendered by a JE in the category of Draughtsman when posted as Draughtsman due to administrative reasons as stipulated under Rule 9(b) and cannot be construed as the service rendered as Draughtsman prior to promotion as JE; that despite the same, the respondents 3 to 23 were appointed as ADEs even before completion of 10 years of service in the category of JE marching over the writ petitioners and other similarly placed AEs who are seniors; that an AE having rendered more than ten years of service is stagnating without promotion, whereas a JE having four years of service is getting promotion; that likewise, a Draughtsman who is in the lower category to AE, got promoted as ADE; that the same is illegal and discriminatory; that the appointment of a diploma holder (JE) with lesser experience as ADE earlier to the degree holder (AE) with higher qualification of B.E. Degree is nothing but meriting the demerits and dementing the merits which is in violation of Rule of Equality mandated under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, and it is also highly discriminatory; that any construction of the Rules which permit to take the service rendered in Draughtsman category before becoming JE for the purpose of promotion to the post of ADE would make the Rules illegal and arbitrary; that the respondents 1 and 2 did not publish the panel for the post of ADE in the Gazette under Rule 4(1) of the General Rules; that the writ petitioners do not have the copy of the Government Orders appointing the respondents 3 to 23 as ADEs and hence those orders have got to be declared as illegal.