TUTICORIN PORT TRUST Vs. V CHOCKALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ appeals are directed against the common order of the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.9361 and 9363 of 1981. The second respondent in the writ petitions is the appellant in these two writ appeals. Respondents 1 to 38 were the writ-petitioners; respondent No.39 was the first respondent in the writ petition and respondents 40 to 61 were respondents 3 to 24 in the writ petitions. We propose to refer to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petitions. W.P.No.9363 of 1981 was preferred by the petitioners seeking for a declaration that entries 10, 16 and 18 of the schedule to the Tuticorin Port Trust Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1979, are unconstitutional, illegal and void. W.P.No.9361 of 1981 was preferred by the petitioners to quash the proceedings relating to the creation of 22 additional posts in the category of Technical Assistant and all the consequential orders making appointments to the said 22 additional posts. The order of the learned single Judge, who dealt with these two writ petitions, covered not only the said two writ petitions, but also W.P.Nos.9360 and 9362 of 1981 with which we are not concerned in these two writ appeals. In the services of the second respondent for the post of Junior Engineer, both diploma holders and degree holders are eligible. When they get so appointed, they go by one and the same designation as Junior Engineers. The posts held by them are inter-changeable. The scale of pay is also identical. In short, they are fused into one combined category and they formed one cohesive class. It must be noted here that for the higher post of Assistant Engineer both are eligible. So far as the features mentioned by us above are concerned, there is no dispute. Then by the entries in the Regulations impugned in W.P.No.9343 of 1981, posts of Technical Assistants in three categories as civil, mechanical and electrical came to be created and for the said posts it was declared that only graduate engineers working as Junior Engineers are eligible. In fact, respondents 3 to 24 had the benefit of consideration of posting as Technical Assistants in one or other of the three categories. THESE gave room for grievance for the diploma holders, the petitioners to come to this court by way of the writ petitions.

(2.) THE learned single Judge after taking note of the undisputed factual features found no warrant for excluding the diploma holders from being given the posting as Technical Assistants in the three categories and finding that such exclusion violated the equality right guaranteed under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, gave a declaration in the following terms:

(3.) IT is only in this context, Mr.P.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioners, pointed out a feature which is certainly unique to the facts of the present case and that is for the post of Assistant Engineer, both degree-holders and non-degree holders, holding and functioning in the post of Technical Assistant in three categories has come only in between. If non-degree holders are fit and eligible to be promoted as Assistant Engineers, and they could also fill in the avenue of promotion, as to what could be and what were the reasons for totally excluding them from getting into the post of Technical Assistant, the second respondent is not in a position to bring conviction to our mind. The learned single Judge relevantly points out that if for the higher post of Assistant Engineer, both degree holders and non-degree holders, holding and occupying the posts of Junior Engineer would be eligible; it stands to no reason as to why the non-degree holders should stand excluded to the post of the Technical Assistant in the three categories, which has come in between the posts of Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer. Our assessment of the facts of the case and the law as settled by the pronouncements of the highest Court in the land, obliges us to concur with the view of the learned single Judge.