S SUYAMBULINGAM Vs. TUTICORIN PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in the present writ petition relates to question of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) under the Tuticorin Port trust, present Respondent No. 1. The promotion to such post of Executive engineer (Civil) takes place from amongst the Assistant Executive Engineers (Civil ). As per the departmental norms, such posts are to be filled from amongst the diploma holders and degree holders in the ratio of 1:2. The petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the action of the first respondent in promoting the respondents 2 and 3 as Executive Engineers on adhoc basis as per order dated 2. 5. 199 7 is illegal and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to promote the petitioner as Executive engineer with effect from 2. 5. 1997 with all consequential benefits, seniority as well as pay, etc.

(2.) FROM the relevant averments made in the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit, the following facts are no longer in dispute. The petitioner joined service under the first respondent as Junior Engineer on 13. 8. 1979 in the pay scale of 425-500-560-700. The second respondent first joined service as Work Inspector I Grade in a lower pay scale of rs. 330-370-400-480. Subsequently, the second respondent was promoted as junior Engineer (Civil) on adhoc basis with effect from 1. 4. 1982 and subsequently appointed as Technical Assistant ( subsequently re-designated as junior Engineer) by transfer on adhoc basis on 14. 9. 1988. Initially the petitioner as well as the respondents 2 and 3 were diploma holders. Subsequently, while they were in service, they acquired B. E. degree. The petitioner acquired such B. E. degree in April, 1989, whereas the respondents 2 and 3 obtained such degree earlier in November 1988 and November 1986 respectively. Thereafter the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 were promoted as Assistant Engineers on different dates. Subsequently, the petitioner and the second respondent were promoted as Assistant Executive engineers on 21. 10. 1993 and the third respondent was promoted with effect from 1 6. 4. 1994. At that stage, a draft seniority list relating to Assistant executive Engineer was notified on 11. 11. 1994. In such seniority list, the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 36, the second respondent was shown at serial No. 37 and the third respondent was shown at Serial No. 40. While the matter stood thus, four vacancies in the post of Executive Engineer arose and out of such vacancies, one vacancy was to be filled up from among the diploma holders and three vacancies from among the degree holders. At that stage, the departmental Promotion Committee met on 29. 4. 1997 and apparently treated respondents 2 and 3 as senior to the petitioner solely on the ground that respondents 2 and 3 had acquired B. E. Degree earlier than the petitioner and on that basis orders of promotion were issued promoting the respondents 2 and 3 ahead of the petitioner. The petitioner immediately filed a representation which having been rejected, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1, re-structuring made from time to time has been indicated. For the purpose of deciding the present writ petitions, those averments are not necessary. So far as the present case is concerned, the relevant averment is to the effect that DPC, which met on 29. 4. 1997, revised the seniority on the basis that respondents 2 and 3 had acquired the degree of Bachelor in Engineering earlier than the present petitioner and, therefore, they were treated as seniors.