B. THIRUMAL versus ANANDA SIVAKUMAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2013] 14 S.C.R. 1076 · Decided: 27-11-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013) 14 S.C.R. 1076 
B. THIRUMAL 
v. 
ANANDA SIVAKUMAR AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.10660-62 of 2013) 
NOVEMBER 27, 2013 
[T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
c 
Promotion - 25% quota reserved for promotion to the 
members of State Subordinate Engineering Service (Diploma 
holder Junior Engineers) - 75% quota reserved for promotion 
to the Assistant Engineers - Upgradationlre-designation of 
Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineers on their 
0 
acquiring degree - After upgradation, degree-holder junior 
engineers/Assistant Engineers considered for promotion to 
the next post in both the categories i.e. 25% as well as 75% 
quotas """'." Held: Re-designation of junior engineers to the post 
of Assistant Engineers was only an upgradation to encourage 
E them for having attained degree - It was not an re-designation 
by transfer, which would tantamount to promotion - Despite 
being re-designated as Assistant Engineer, they continued to 
hold the post of Junior Engineer - Hence consideration of 
such degree-holder redesignated Assistant Engineers for 
promotion against 25% quota cannot be found fault with -
F However, consideration of such officers against the quota of 
25% as well as 75% cannot be justified - Hence they cannot 
be considered against 75% quota. 
The appellant-a diploma-holder Engineer (Electrical) 
G in the Tamil Nadu Public Works Department, filed 
representations seeking discontinuation of practice of 
Asstt. Engineers (Electrical) being empanelled for 
promotion to the post of Asstt. Executive Engineer 
(Electrical) against 25% quota reserved for the members 
H 
1076 
B. THIRUMAL v. ANANDA SIVAKUMAR 
1077 
of Subordinate Engineering Service (to which the post of A 
Junior Engineer belonged) because the same was 
against State Engineering Service. The plea of the 
appellant was that though some vacancies in the cadre 
of Asstt. Executive Engineers were earmarked for Junior 
Engineers, the same were being filled up by appointment 
B 
of re-designated Asstt. Engineers. The representations 
were rejected by the authorities concerned. 
He filed writ petitions seeking direction reserved for 
the members of Subordinate service i.e. diploma-holder C 
Junior Engineers. Single Judge of High Court allowed 
both the writ petitions. The order of the Single Judge was 
set aside by Division Bench of High Court. Hence the 
present appeals. 
The respondents inter alia contended that re-
D 
designation of diploma-holder Junior Engineers 
(Electrical) as Asstt. Engineers (Electrical) upon their 
acquiring decree was not re-designation by· transfer, but 
it was simple re-designation on the basis of their higher 
qualification and such re-designation did not snap their 
E 
lien with their parent service i.e. Subordinate Engineering 
Service and thus they continued to be eligible for 
promotion against 25% quota meant for Subordinate 
Engineering Service despite their re-designation as Asstt. 
Engineers (Electrical). 
F 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. No reference to the Tamil Nadu State 
Public Service Commission was made nor was any other 
process of selection undertaken for re-designation of G 
degree holder Junior Engineers, which was based 
entirely on the degree qualification of the incumbent and 
was granted with effect from the date the qualification 
was acquired. The re-designation had similarly nothing 
to do with the number of vacancies available in the State 
H 
1078 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 14 S.C.R. 
A Engineering Service. Availability of vacancies in the 
cadre of Assistant Engineers was an essential condition 
precedent for any recruitment to that cadre whether by 
transfer or otherwise. Not only that, re-designation did 
not result in the occurrence of any vacancy in the cadre 
B of Junior Engineers as it should ordinarily have, when 
someone holding the post of Junior Engineer got 
appointed to another service, resulting in the termination 
of his lien in the parent service. This implied that even 
though re-designated as an Assistant Engineer 
c (Electrical) the incumbent continued to hold the post of 
Junior Engineer after re-designation. All this leads to the 
irresistible conclusion that except financial benefit and 
status, re-designation did not bring about any other 
change. 
Even the duties of such re-designated officers 
0 remained the same as before. According to the State 
Government, the two positions viz. Junior Engineer 
(Electrical) and

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.