DATTATRAYA G WANKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sixty-two, Civil Engineer graduates, working as Sub Divisional Engineers, in the Public Works Department of the State of Maharashtra, filed an Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, being O.A. No.473 of 1998. By the said O.A. they originally sought a declaration that Rule 4 (2) of the Maharashtra Service of Engineers Class I and the Maharashtra Service of Engineers Class II (Regulation of Seniority and preparation and revision of seniority lists) Rules, 1983 is unconstitutional. The reliefs sought were :-

(2.) The Maharashtra Service of Engineers Class I and the Maharashtra Service of Engineers Class II (Regulation of Seniority and preparation and revision of seniority lists) Rules, 1983 hereinafter referred to as the 1983 Rules, were notified to give effect to the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.P.Patwardhan vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 S.C.2051 and the subsequent Judgment of this Court in S.C.Bagayat Patil and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., in Writ Petition No.3485 of 1980 and the judgment in P.Y. Joshi & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., in Writ Petition No.672 of 1981 wherein this Court had issued certain direction to the State of Maharashtra to frame new Rules to replace Rule 33 and other Rules. Apart from these Rules there are also other Rules in force for Recruitment and laying down the Conditions of Service of Class I and Class II Officers of the Maharashtra Service of Engineers.

(3.) The learned Tribunal by a common order dated 14th May, 1999 disposed off both O.As. The learned Tribunal in both the Applications noted that the very issue raised before the Tribunal was in issue before this Court in Direct Recruits, Class-II Engineering Association Vs. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No.620 of 1984 and 14 others) decided on 9th December, 1985. The Tribunal noted that the contention had earlier been raised before this Court that there ought not to be any distinction between the Assistant Engineers Class II and Sub Divisional Engineers, since both are Graduate Engineers. This Court had observed that the Government had decided to divide Class II posts into cadres of Deputy Engineers, Assistant Engineers Class-II, Sub-Divisional Engineers and Sub-Divisional Officers. The scale of pay of Assistant Engineers Class-II and Sub-Divisional Engineers as also their duties and responsibilities were slightly different. The cadre of Sub-Divisional Engineers did not have any direct recruits as they were promotees from a feeder cadre. This Court had held that these are two distinct cadres and it is not open to say that they ought to have been merged. The various other submissions as urged were considered and dealt with. The petition was dismissed. The matter went in Appeal to the Supreme Court. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Cour which heard the matter dismissed the Special Leave Petitions whilst observing that they did not find any merit in any of the Civil Appeals. The judgment is reported in Direct Recruits Class II Engineering Association vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1990 S.C. 160. The Tribunal held that one of the reasons mentioned by this Court in the Direct Recruits case for dismissing the petition was that the cadre of Sub Divisional Engineers does not have any direct recruits at all and that conclusion holds good although the other two reasons relating to scale of pay and duties and responsibilities may not hold any more and consequently a valid distinction does exist between the two cadres. The Tribunal noted that while it can be said that there is a case for the State Government to consider the merger of the two cadres, if for any reason the State Government chooses to keep the two cadres distinct, it cannot on that ground be considered unconstitutional. Accordingly both the Original Applications were dismissed.