A AROKIA DOSS Vs. L T ATHMARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals have been filed against the judgments rendered by Padmanabhan, J. in Writ Petition No.1794/81 and Mohan, J. in W.P.1896/31. The first writ appeal viz. W.A.No.529/83 lias been filed by respondents 4 to 7 in the Writ Petition No.1896/81 and the second writ appeal viz. W.A.No.-575/83 has been filed by the 2nd respondent in the writ petition 1794 of 1981.

(2.) THE circumstances under which the above writ petitions came to be filed before this court against respondents 1 and 2 therein representing the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, hereinafter referred to as the � Board' for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring proviso 2 to Rule 19(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Service Rules as ultra vires and unconstitutional in so far as the petitioners are concerned are these: THEy possess Diploma and Licentiate in Sanitary Engineering and Civil Engineering of the Directorate of Technical Education, Madras. THEre are two feeder categories from which promotion is made to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers. One is the category of Assistant Engineers who are degree holders whereas junior engineers are diploma holders. THE petitioners belonged to the latter category. Once the persons are promoted as Assistant Executive Engineers from the above two feeder categories, they got merged into one category namely, Assistant Executive Engineers. THE responsibilities and the nature of work as also the emoluments are the same and there is no differentiation thereafter. After the petitioners were promoted as Assistant Executive Engineers, a common seniority list was published on 24-4-1980. In that list, the writ petitioners were sufficiently seniors to be considered for promotion as Executive Engineers. However, since the petitioners were not promoted as Executive Engineers even though their juniors have been promoted, they made representations to the Board to the effect that they had to be promoted before their juniors are promoted but they were told that they could be considered for promotion only if they are of exceptional merit and ability as provided in the proviso to Regulation 19(2)(b) of the Board's Service Regulations, 1972. It is at this stage the petitioners have come before this court, seeking a declaration that the proviso to Regulation 19(2)(b) is invalid and for directing the respondents in the writ petitions to promote the petitioners ignoring the above alleged invalid provision in the Regulations.

(3.) PADMANABHAN, J. before whom Writ Petition No.1794/81 came up for disposal held that though the petitioner herein was a diploma holder, once degree holders and diploma holders are appointed as Assistant Executive Engineers and treated alike both in respect of their duties as well as salary, no discrimination could be made between the two categories with reference to the subsequent promotion to the post of Executive Engineers and that since the proviso to Regulation 19(2)(b) discriminates the Assistant Executive Engineers who are diploma holders it has to be struck down. In that view the learned Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the Board to consider the claim of the petitioner in that writ petition for promotion as Executive Engineer on a par with others without reference to the second proviso to Regulation 19(2)(b). Writ Petition No.1896 of 1981 came up for final disposal before Mohan, J. and the learned Judge has followed and applied the said decision of Padma-nabhan, J. rendered in Writ Petition No.1794/81. Thus the view taken by PADMANABHAN, J. has been questioned in these writ appeals by the Board on the one hand and persons who are likely to be affected by giving effect to the order of PADMANABHAN, J. on the other.