MADRAS PORT TRUST Vs. V RAMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Review Application No.68 of 2001 in W.A. No.1251 of 2000, which emanated from W.P. No.11938 of 1993. The judgment will also cover C.M.P. No.13438 of 2001, which is an application for grant of leave to file a review application in Review Application SR No.54979 of 2001 against the same aforementioned Division Bench judgment in W.A. No.1251 of 2001. Since the subject is common this judgment will also dispose of W.P. Nos.4573 and 4774 of 2003. Few facts will be necessary for understanding the controversy involved.

(2.) A writ petition came to be filed being W.P. No.11938 of 1993 by the present respondents 1 to 4 and one Muthu, who were employed in the Madras Port Trust, petitioner herein. They all are the engineers, having the qualification of diploma in engineering. Initially the petition was for a relief of a Mandamus or a Direction to the Madras Port Trust to carry out the necessary amendments to the regulations framed and thereby providing the promotion opportunities to the Diploma-Engineers to the post of Executive Engineer in the ratio of 4:1, i.e. as against four posts of Executive Engineer to graduate-engineers, one post to diploma-engineer was sought. This was obviously on the basis of the earlier communications made by the Central Government, bearing Ref. No.C-13019/24/87-PE-II, dated 8-6-1991.

(3.) It was pointed out that as per this communication, the Madras Port Trust had also constituted a Committee, which also recommended by its recommendation dated 30-6-1992 that the diploma-holders should be made eligible to be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. During the pendency of this petition, however, the Union of India sent a second communication dated 29-6-1994 and by that it was provided that a common seniority list should be maintained for diploma-holders and degree-holders once the two streams merge i.e. once the diploma-holders and degree-holders come on the common platform occupying the same post. By that communication, the Chairman was requested to take action immediately. This letter was in supersession of an earlier letter Ref.C-13019/3092-PE-II, dated 6-6-1994 and in partial modification of letter Ref.C-13019/20/94-PE-II dated 8-6-1991.