ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERS versus GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 11 S.C.R. 713 · Decided: 14-09-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] l l S.C.R. 713 
ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERS 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 995 of2009) 
SEPTEMBER 14,2017 
[ARUN MISHRA AND 
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.] 
Tamilnadu Engineering Service Special Rules, 1985 - rr. 2, 
A 
B 
5 - Promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer - Tribunal directed 
C 
that the post of Assistant Engineer shall be filled up in the ratio of 
3:1, with reference to direct rec111itment and recruitment by transfer 
from the eligiblepersons holding basic qualification as per rules -
Correctness of - Held: Though initial~y in 1972, the Rule was that 
Overseers and Draftsmen Gr. II and III could be recruited by way 
of transfer to the post of Assistant Engineer, in case they had acquired D 
the qualification after they had entered into the service and rendered 
requisite period of service, as prescribed by the Rules of 1972 -
However, thereafter, amendment came into force in 1983 w.ef 1980, 
and Overseers and Civil Draftsman Grade II and III were made 
ineligible for promotion as Assistant Engineer - The eligibility was 
E 
confined to Head Draftsmen G1: I - The position of 1972 was altered 
and given a go bye till 1985 rules came into force - A bare reading 
of r.5, read with 1:2(a) of Rules of I 985 make it clear that the 
incumbents, working at the post of Overseers and Civil Draftsmen, 
in case they had requisite qualification and experience, are to be 
promoted by way of transfer to the posts of Assistant Engineers - It 
F 
is clear that differentiation of grades of Draftsmen had been done 
away with and all Civil Draftsmen had been made eligible including 
Overseer under r.2 of 1985 R11les - The Rules of I 985 holds the 
field - Hlith respect to the alleged illegal us11rpation of the quota of 
direct recruitment, it is apparent that inter alia the inc11mbents, 
G 
holding the post, in the Public Works Department, of Overseers or 
Junior Engineer qfter serving for one year becomes eligible to stake 
their claim to the post of direct recruitment - Thus, if' they are 
appointed by way of direct recruitment, it could not be said that 
they had illegally usurped the quota reserved for direct recruitment -
As a matter offact, on being appointed by way of process of direct 
H 
713 
714 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] l l S.C.R. 
A 
recruilment. they are not to be treated as recruited against the quota 
reserved for recruitment by way of transfer - Once they have been 
se/ecred by prolless of direc/ recruitment. they have to be counted 
towards quota of 75% reserved for the direct recruitment. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 995 of 
B 
2009 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2006 passed by the 
High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 7523 of 1997 
WITH 
C. A. Nos. 997-998 of 2009 
Jayant Bhushan, V. Prakash, Sr. Advs. N. Subramaniyan, Pranav 
Sachdeva, Ms. Neha Rathi, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Nikhil Nayyar, Eashwar. 
A. V. Rangam, Buddy A. Ranganadhan, K. V. Vijaykumar, Ms. Maitrcyee 
Mishra, P. Rajendran, Beno Banugar, Harsh Prabha (for Sanjay Kumar 
Viscn), R. Nedum~ran, Ms. A. Sumathi, B. Balaji. Advs. for the appearing 
parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
1. The appellant has come up in appeals, questioning the 
adjudication made by the Tribunal, which has been affirmed by the High 
Couit. The Tribunal had directed with respect to the posts of Assistant 
Engineers that the same shall be filled up in the ratio of3: 1, with rcforcnce 
to direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer from the eligible persons 
holding basic qualifications as per rules. 
2. The case has a chequered history. In the year 1972, 
Government order, i.e., G.0.Ms.No.1745 dated I 0'' October, 1972 was 
promulgated, which amended the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu 
Engineering Subordinate Service for appointment of Overseers, Head 
Draftsmen or Civil Draftsmen possessing L.C.E. and A.M.l.E. (India) 
qualification with a minimum service of three years as Junior Engineers 
re-designated as Assistant Engineers. The following amendment had 
been made in the said Rules: 
"AMENDMENT 
In the said Special Rules in Schedule-II to Branch I of Part-II 
H 
atlcr the existing proviso under ltemc5(1V)(C) in Col.2 against 
ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERS v. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL 
NADU & ORS. 
the item 'Supervisors' in Col(!) the following shall be added, 
namcly:-
"Provided further than an Overseer or Head Draftsman or 
Civil D'Man (possessing d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.