Supreme Court: In an appeal against the judgment and order of the Madras High Court, wherein the Court allowed the appeals preferred by the State for appointing Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers by transfer, the division bench of BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., while quashing the impugned orders, remanded the matter to the Madras High Court for consideration afresh in accordance with law. Further, the Bench held that the continuation of the Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers would not amount to encroaching upon the 75% posts apportioned for the members of the Association of Engineers.
Background:
The employees are governed by Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and Special Rules to govern different services in the State. The engineering staff comes under the Tamil Nadu Engineering Service and Tamil Nadu Engineering Subordinate Service.
In 1990, Public Works Department, Tamil Nadu (‘PWD’) issued an order accepting the recommendations of Chief Engineer, PWD (General) and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (‘TNPSC’) and directed that from the date of this order, Junior Draughting Officers, Draughting Officers, Overseers and Technical Assistants (‘Officers’), who have completed 5 years of service and acquired B.E./A.M.I.E. qualification, will be entitled to be appointed as Assistant Engineers on transfer of service.
In 1991, a Government order was issued wherein it was clarified that TNPSC need not be consulted for appointment of officers who have completed 5 years of service and acquired B.E./A.M.I.E. qualification, as Assistant Engineers.
In 1994, an advertisement was issued by the TNPSC for direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers. This advertisement was challenged by the Officers on the ground that their appointment should also be considered in the advertised posts in terms of abovementioned Government Orders.
The Tribunal allowed the applications filed by Junior Draughting Officers and Draughting Officers, however, dismissed the applications filed by Technical Assistants. The Tribunal observed that the Technical Assistants are not part of feeder category from which recruitment by transfer can be made for the post of Assistant Engineers.
Thereafter, the Association of Engineers filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court challenging the Tribunal’s order. However, the Court dismissed the petition. In 2009, the said order of the High Court was challenged before this Court, which was also dismissed.
From 1999 till 2002, a total of 491 vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineers were notified to be filled up. Around 122 vacancies were to be filled by recruitment by transfer, but only 29 vacancies alone had been filled up so far. The Tamil Nadu Government, due to dearth of eligible candidates to fill the remaining 93 vacancies by transfer, directed appointment of persons in the category of Technical Assistant, who possessed B.E./A.M.I.E. qualification in Civil Engineering and have rendered 5 years of service on temporary basis. Thereafter, 21 Technical Assistants were appointed as Assistant Engineers temporarily.
Aggrieved, the Association of Engineers filed writ petition Madras High Court challenging the abovementioned appointment order. The Single Judge of the High Court restrained the State from appointing Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers by recruitment by transfer unless and until the statutory rules were amended making Technical Assistants as feeder category. Thereafter, the division bench of the High Court set aside the order of the Single Judge. Aggrieved, the Association of Engineers filed the present appeal.
Analysis and decision:
The Court said that the Technical Assistants are not claiming against the 75% posts available for direct recruits. Their claim is only towards 25% posts which are required to be filled in by Junior Draughting Officers, Overseers and Technical Assistants who have put five years’ service and have acquired B.E./A.M.I.E. qualification. Thus, the Court held that the Technical Assistants are not encroaching on the quota apportioned for directly recruited Assistant Engineers.
The Court noted that the State Government was required to take a decision to appoint Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers on temporary basis, as it was found that out of 122 vacancies apportioned to the post of Assistant Engineer to be filled up by recruitment by transfer, only 29 vacancies had been filled so far.
The Court remarked that the attempt of the Association of Engineers is to grab all the posts available, even those apportioned for the candidates promoted from subordinate services. The Court viewed that, this attitude is totally unequitable.
After taking note of Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, , the Court said that equity demands no interference to be warranted in the impugned judgment in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Thus, the Court set aside the order dated 3-08-2022 and 17-03-2022 and remanded the matter to the High Court.
CASE DETAILS
| Citation: Appellants : Assn. of Engineers Respondents : State of T.N. | Advocates who appeared in this case For Appellant(s): Madhavi Divan, Sr. Adv., Preetika Dwivedi, AOR, Abhisek Mohanty, Adv., Pranav Sachdeva, Adv., Neha Rathi, AOR. Kamal Kishore, Adv.,Kajal Giri, Adv., N Subramaniyan, Adv., Pranav Sachdeva, AOR, Jatin Bhardwaj, Adv., Aakriti, Adv., Abhay Nair, Adv. For Respondent(s): V. Prakash, Sr. Adv., Senthil Jagadeesan, Sr. Adv., K.K. Mani, AOR, T. Archana, Adv., Rajeev Gupta, Adv., Sanjay R. Hegda, Sr. Adv., D. Kumanan, AOR, Sheikh F Kalia, Adv., Deepa. S, Adv., Beno Deswal, Adv., Senthil Jagadeesan, Sr. Adv., Sonakshi Malhan, AOR, Sajal Jain, Adv., Sabarish Subramanian, AOR, Pranav Sachdeva, Adv., Neha Rathi, AOR, Kamal Kishore, Adv., Kajal Giri, Adv. |
CORAM :
BR Gavai, J.
Sandeep Mehta, J.
The post appeared first on .