S BALU Vs. STATE REP , BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPALITY ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, FORT ST GEORGE, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner herein is presently working as Junior Engineer in the Electrical Department of second respondent herein. He joined the service as Assistant Supervisor on 25.07.1995 and was later upgraded to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical Department) on 01.08.1997. The next promotional avenue for Junior Engineers in the second respondent Corporation is Assistant Divisional Engineer. Junior Engineer with diploma and minimum service experience of 15 years is required qualification for the said post.

(2.) The case of the writ petitioner is that earlier when the respondents reckoned 15 years of total service experience in the Corporation, instead of exclusive service in the cadre of Junior Engineer and introduced 3:1 quota between the decree holders (Assistant Engineers) and Diploma Holders (Junior Engineers), both being the feeder categories for the promotional post of Assistant Divisional Engineers, it was challenged by way of Writ Petition by the Assistant Engineers (Decree Holders). Though the Decree Holders initially succeeded before the learned Single Judge, on appeal the Division Bench of this Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and held that, Rule 4 of the Madras Corporation Engineering Service Rules, 1969, prescribes 15 years of total experience in the Electrical Department and not 15 years experience as Junior Engineers. Therefore, the promotion of Diploma Holders with total experience of 15 years cannot be faulted. In respect of fixing ratio, the Division Bench held that the Authority to fix ratio in promotion vest with the Government, when the Government has consciously omitted to fix ratio among the feeder category, the Decree Holders cannot claim ratio in promotion prevailing in other Departments. While the Law regarding promotion to the post of Assistant Divisional Engineers from the feeder categories of Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers is settled by the verdict of this Court in W.A.No.255 of 2005, dated 28.09.2007, in violation of the said judgment, the respondent has passed the impugned order following the ratio in promotion with retrospective effect from 22.08.1996. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash G.O.(Ms) No. 96, dated 29.07.2016 by Municipal Administration & Water Supply (MC-3) Department and the consequential Resolution No.50 in G.D.Na.Ka.No.E-1/20893 /2016 dated 18.08.2016 and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Division Engineer (Electical) with all service and monetary benefits.

(3.) The Corporation of Chennai, who is the second respondent herein, in its counter has stated that in the earlier round of litigation between the Degree Holders and Diploma Holders challenging the vires of 3:1 ratio for the further promotion as Assistant Executive Engineers, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.10595 of 1992, Civil Appeal No.406 of 1993 directed the Corporation to ascertain the vacancies in the category of Assistant Executive Engineers, that have arisen three months prior to the coming into force of the amendment introducing 3:1 quota between Degree Holders and Diploma Holders and work out the vacancies which would have gone to the Diploma Holders, if un-amended Rules had been followed. On ascertaining, the Diploma Holders, who would have been promoted in those vacancies, they all should be promoted to that vacancies. Untill these Diploma Holders are promoted to the category of Assistant Executive Engineers, no Degree Holders shall be promoted.