S GANDHI Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER (GENERAL), HIGHWAYS AND RURAL WORKS AND REGISTRAR, TAMIL NADU ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were the applicants before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 5118 of 2000 etc. batch. The challenge is to the order of the Tribunal dated 22.03.2002 dismissing their applications. The petitioners were working as Draughtsmen in the Tamil Nadu State Highways Engineering Services. They were all diploma holders. Under the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, promotion to the post of Junior Engineers meant for diploma holders and appointment to the post of Assistant Engineers by way of direct recruitment was determined, by which 25% of the posts have been ear marked for the diploma holders who are working in the feeder category of Draughtsmen, while 75% is meant for being appointed as Assistant Engineers by way of direct recruitment through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. When the petitioners were aspiring for their promotions and since the vacancies to be filled up by way of direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineers was getting delayed, the petitioners came to be promoted and appointed as Junior Engineers under Rule 39(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules through orders dated 06.02.1999, apart from the fact that Rule 39(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules itself is specific to the effect that in public interest owing to an emergency which has arisen to fill immediately a vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of a higher category in a service or class by promotion from lower category and that there would be undue delay in making such promotion in accordance with the rules, the appointing authority can temporarily promote a person, who possesses the qualifications prescribed for the post, otherwise than in accordance with the Rules. Clause 4 of the appointment order made it clear that the petitioners were all promoted purely on temporary basis and that they would be reverted to their original position at any time without prior notice and without assigning any reasons. It also stated that the orders of promotion would not confer any rights in the post of Junior Engineer or for any claim in the seniority in that post. In the above stated circumstances, while the petitioners were all functioning as Junior Engineers on temporary basis, by Notification No. 36 of 1995, the State Government took steps for filling up the posts of Assistant Engineers by way of direct recruitment i.e. 75% quota meant for the degree holders. At that point of time it was noted that the post meant for diploma holders in the category of Junior Engineers was already in excess and that the only post available was meant to be filled up by way of direct recruitment from among the degree holders to the post of Assistant Engineers. The said Notification No. 36 of 1995 was challenged by the Association representing the Junior Engineers in O.A.No. 444 of 1996. While entertaining the said Original Application, an order of interim stay of the notification was also granted. However, subsequently, the interim stay application in M.A.No. 4037 of 1996 in O.A.No. 444 of 1996 came to be disposed of by an order dated 21.08.1996. The Tribunal, while dismissing the said application held as under in paragraph Nos. 10 and 11:

(2.) Though the main O.A. No. 444 of 1196 is stated to be pending, in effect, the order in the stay petition has virtually determined the fate of the diploma holders. The said order of the Tribunal dated 21.08.1996 has become final, since no further challenge was made to the said order. The claim of the petitioners in the present Original Application was to quash the order dated 14.07.2000 in and by which the petitioners were sought to be reverted to the post of Draughting Officers or Junior Draughting Officers. The same was resisted by the contesting respondents herein, namely the State, by pointing out that this very issue now raised by the petitioners have already been determined in the Interlocutory Application in O.A.No. 444 of 1996 and therefore, the contentions of the petitioners cannot be examined once over again.

(3.) The Tribunal while considering the claim of the petitioners on merits has held that the petitioners cannot aspire to trespass into the post meant for direct recruitment namely 75% of vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineers, that the petitioners were all promoted by invoking Rule 39(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, by which appointments by way of promotion was purely a temporary one and therefore, no valid right has accrued to the petitioners in order to challenge the reversion ordered by the State Government in the order dated 14.07.2000. The Tribunal has also noted that by virtue of the orders passed in the Stay Application in O.A.No. 444 of 1996 dated 21.08.1996, the issue has already been decided against the petitioners. The Tribunal ultimately rejected the Original Applications. It is also noted by the Tribunal in its order that all the petitioners were relieved in pursuance of the order of reversion passed against them and therefore, nothing survived in the stay petition. The Original Applications were therefore dismissed on merits. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have come forward with these writ petitions challenging the order of the Tribunal.