A MUKYAPRANA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the points involved are the same in all these cases, they are dealt with together.

(2.) WRIT Appeal Nos.854 and 855 of 1983 have been filed against the judgment rendered by Nainar Sundaram, J. in WRIT Petition No.1137 of 1980 the first one by the petitioner in the WRIT Petition and the second by the 7th respondent therein. The appellant in WRIT Appeal No. 854 of 1983 sought in WRIT Petition No. 1137 of 1980 the issue a WRIT of Declaration declaring clause 2(c) of the Rules made in G.O.Ms.No.1461, Home (Transport II) dated 26.6.1978 issued by the Tamil Nadu Government under which the ratio of promotion to the post of Regional Transport Officers has been reduced to 1:4 from 1:1 as between the administrative side and the technical side respectively of the Transport Department as unconstitutional as it contravenes Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. That WRIT Petition was originally heard by Padma-nabhan J. who by his order dated 2.4.1982 allowed the WRIT Petition and declared the above clause 2(c) of the Rules as unconstitutional. Earlier in WRIT Petition No.2010 of 1979 filed by one M.Ebenezer, Superintendent, Office of the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruchirappalli the same rule was challenged as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. V.Ramaswamy, J. by his order dated 17th July, 1979, rejected the said contention and dismissed the WRIT Petition. WRIT Appeal No.421 of 1979 was preferred as against the decision of V.Ramaswamy, J. While that WRIT Appeal was pending respondents 1 to 3 in WRIT Petition No.1137 of 1980 which was disposed of by Padma-nabhan, J. preferred WRIT Appeal No.375 of 1985 against the said order of Padmanabhan, J. There were other WRIT appeals filed by the other respondents who have been brought on record subsequently and they were WRIT Appeals Nos.256 and 257 of 1982. All the said four writ appeals were heard by a Division Bench and at that stage the State Government filed as additional affidavit with the permission of the Court bringing in certain fresh facts as forming the basis for the reduction of the ratio of promotion complained of in the writ petitions and requested the Bench to take those factors also into consideration. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.1137 of 1980 and the respondent in WRIT Appeal No.375 of 1982 had submitted before the Bench that if these additional factors are to be taken into account, a reply affidavit has to be filed and there should be a re-hearing of the whole matter. At that stage the Division Bench felt that the correct course would be to set aside the orders of both Padmanabhan, J. in WRIT Petition No.1137 of 1980 and that of V.Ramaswami, J. in WRIT Petition No.2010 of 1979 and to remit the matter to the WRIT Court for fresh and fuller consideration. It is in pursuance of the said remit order, WRIT Petition No.1137 of 1980 came to be heard afresh by Nainar Sundaram, J. WRIT Petition No.2010 of 1979 having been ordered to be posted for disposal after WRIT Petition No.1137 of 1980 is disposed of, it was not posted along with the other WRIT Petition. Nainar Sundaram, J. after hearing the parties has chosen to dismiss the WRIT Petition by his judgment dated 2.4.1982 on the ground that the grounds of attack put forward by the writ petitioner cannot legally be sustained. It is the said decision of Nainar Sundaram, J. which is under challenge in these two writ appeals.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that till 18.2.1965 the ratio for promotion from among the Superintendents in the office of the Transport Commissioner, Madras and the Regional Transport Offices combined with the Superintendents in the Secretariat in Home, Industries and Labour and Co-operation Departments on the one side and the Motor Vehicles Inspectors on the other was 1:1. However, by G.O.Ms.No.566 Home dated 18-2-1965, the post of Joint Regional Transport Officer was created and promotion to the category of Regional Transport Officers was made from the posts of Joint Regional Transport Officers based on the seniority in the latter cadre. IT cannot also be disputed that between 1965 and 1978 many changes have taken place in the staff pattern of the Transport Department. While previously the Junior Superintendents and Motor Vehicles Inspectors could be promoted straightaway as Joint Regional Transport Officers as per the ratio, posts of Personal Assistants to Regional Transport Officers and non-technical Motor Vehicles Inspectors were created which gave an avenue of promotion to the Superintendents to a higher category. The posts of Joint Regional Transport Officers were however, abolished in 1974. At that time there were 12 posts of non-technical motor vehicles Inspectors and 11 posts of Personal Assistants to the Regional Transport Officers, in between Superintendents and Regional Transport Officers, and it was considered not necessary to retain the old rule where Superintendents could straightaway be promoted to the cadre of Joint Regional Transport Officers or Regional Transport Officers and, therefore, the posts of Superintendents were deleted from the feeder category of Regional Transport Officers. Thereafter the Government felt that as the work of the Regional Transport Officers involves not only administrative work but also requires technical knowledge for the better performance of his work, the ratio of 1:4 between non-technical and technical staff in the matter of promotion to the post of Regional Trans-port Officers should be fixed. IT is said that such a policy decision which was taken in the larger interests of the administration cannot be questioned by the petitioners as the increase in the percentage is in the interest of the better administration of the Department, and the increase is not arbitrary or discriminatory, nor does it offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Even according to the qualification, for appointment to the technical side that is as Motor Vehicles Inspector the requisite qualification is S.S.L.C. with diploma in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering whereas for the appointment to the administrative side the requisite qualification is only S.S.L.C. IT has been therefore felt by the Government that the persons on the technical side having a better qualification should be given more representation in the matter of promotion to the posts of Regional Transport Officers. This, according to respondents cannot be said to be unreasonable or amount to an unequal treatment as between equals.