ANANDA SIVAKUMAR Vs. B THIRUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to filing of the writ appeals are as follows :- For convenience, the parties are described as they are described in W.A.Nos.1155 and 1156 of 2008. THE three writ appellants and Respondent No.1 in the appeals, who were diploma holders in Electrical Engineering, were appointed vide proceedings, dated 16.11.1985, issued by the Chief Engineer (General) as Junior Engineers governed under the Tamil Nadu Engineering Subordinate Service Rules in the Electrical wing of the Public Works Department. In such proceedings, keeping in view the communal roaster and relative merit, three appellants were slotted against S.Nos.2, 6 and 7 respectively, whereas Respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) was slotted at S.No.16. In course of time, three appellants obtained degree in Electrical Engineering and, as per the existing Government Orders, they were re-designated as Assistant Engineers, whereas Respondent No.1 continued to hold the post of Junior Engineer. It appears that in the Department there was a convention of considering the Diploma Holder Junior Engineer, who is subsequently re-designated as Assistant Engineer on acquisition of degree in Electrical Engineering, for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) within the 1/4th quota available to a Diploma Holder Junior Engineer. Respondent No.1 made a representation to discontinue such convention of considering the name of Junior Engineer (Electrical) re-designated as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) as eligible within the 1/4th quota for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical). Such request was turned down by Office Memorandum No.C I (3)/10786/2005-1, dated 18.1.2006, issued by the Chief Engineer (WRO). W.P.No,25871of 2006 was filed by Respondent No.1 for quashing such Memorandum, dated 18.1.2006. In the meantime such Respondent No.1 had also filed a representation before the State Government, which apparently was rejected by the Government by Letter No.15634/B2/2006-2, dated 14.9.2006. Such letter had been challenged by the very same Respondent No.1 by filing W.P.No,8925 of 2007. Both the writ petitions were taken up together for disposal by the learned single Judge and ultimately were allowed by a common judgment, dated 29.8.2008.

(2.) WRIT Appeal Nos.1155 and 1156 of 2008 are directed against such common judgment of the learned single Judge by the three appellants, who were not parties to the writ petition. Incidentally all the three appellants have been promoted as Assistant Executive Engineers during November, 2007, on the basis of the panel prepared for the year 2005-2006. The connected W.A.No.1346 of 2008 has been filed by the Tamil Nadu Engineering Association against the very same common judgment relating to W.P.No,25871 of 2006.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the State Government also has supported the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants.