LexP. MURUGESAN AND OTHERS versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
P. MURUGESAN AND OTHERS v STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS FEBRUARY 3, 1993 A (LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, 0., B.P. JEEVAN REDDY B AND A.S. ANAND, JJ.] Civil Services-Madras Corporation Engineering Service Rules, 1969--Promotion to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer-Ratio 3:1 between graduate engineers (Assistant Engineers) and diploma-holder en- gineers (Junior Engineers)--whether violative of Articles 14, 16 of the Con- stitution. c Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919--Section 87-¥acancies arose prior to Madras Corporation Engineering Service (Amendment) Rules, 1990--whether to be filled according to unamended Madras Corporation D Engineering S~rvices Rules, 1969-Supreme Court's direction. Under the Madras Corporation Engineering Service Rules, 1969, the recruitment to the posts of Assistant Engineers was by (1) direct recruit- ment, (b) by promotion from the category of Supervisors and (c) by appointment on deputation. The graduate Supervisors were required to put in a minimum or five years service in the category or Supervisors for becoming eligible for promotion, whereas the diploma-holder-Supervisors were required to put in a minimum service of ten years as Supen'isors. In the category of Supervisors, in the matter of pay scales too, distinction was maintained between graduates and diploma-holders; while E F the pay-scale or the category of Supervisors was Rs. 325-650, the graduates were started at the initial pay of Rs. 400. From 1972 onwards, the pay scales prescribed for the graduates and the diploma-holders were dif- G · ferent. In 1978, the diploma-holder-Supervisors were designated as Junior Engineers, while the degree-holder-Supervisors were designated as Assis- tant Engineers. The Posts of Assistant Engineers were re-designated as Assistant Executive Engineers. 405 H 406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 1 S.C.R. A In 1978 certain promotions were made to the category or Assistant Executive Engineers by applying the ratio or 3:1 between the graduate-en- ~ gineers (Assistant Engineers) and the diploma-holder-engineers (Junior Engineers). The respondents-Junior Engineers challenged the promotions in B writ petitions in the High Court, which was dismissed by a Single Judge. On appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court quashed the promo- tions holding that as the Madras Corporation Engineering SerVice Rules, 1969 did not provide for any ratio, the Corporation could not prescribe C the ratio or 3:1 by a mere resolution or by an executive order. D The Special Leave Petition prererred against the "judgment or the Division Bench or the High Court was dismissed by this Court on 25.1.1990. The State Goverumeat thereafter amended the 1969 Rules in 1990 providing for the ratio or 3:1 between the degree-holders and the diploma· holders in the matter or promotion to the posts or the Assistant Executive Engineers. The 1990 Amendment Rules also provided that a Junior En· gineer (diploma-holder) who acquired an engineering degree or its E equivalent during his service would be eligible for appointment as Assis· tant Executive Engineer, ir he puts in three years or service in the Corpora- tion Engineering Subordinate Service after obtaining the degree. F G The diploma-holders questioned the validity or the 1990 Amendment Rules, in writ petitions before the High Court. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the validity or the 3:1 ratio. On appeal, the Division Bench quashed the amendment introducing the ratio or 3:1, against which the present appeal was filed by the graduate Engineers. The appellants contended that the Assistant Engineers and the Junior Engineers constituted different categories though performing similar functions and discharging similar responsibilities; that their pay· scales were different; that the Statutory Rules of 1969 made a distinction, between the two categories inasmuch as while only Ove years' qualifying H service was prescribed for the Assistant Engineers (graduates), ten years MURUGESAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 407 was prescribed for the Juuior Engineers (diploma-holders); that in such A a situation imposing of an additional restriction upon the promotional chances of Junior Engineers by the 1990 Amendment Rules was neither incompetent nor discriminatory; that Section 87 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act was not mandatory but only directory •. The respondents-diploma-holders submitted
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.