LexTAMIL NADU RURAL DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION versus THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 840 A TAMIL NADU RURAL DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION v. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT & ORS. B (Civil Appeal No. 8758 OF 2013 etc.) SEPTEMBER 27, 2013 [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND M. Y. EQBAL, JJ.] C SERVICE LAW: Seniority between direct recruits and promotee Assistant Engineers - Held: Appellants were absorbed in RD Department as Overseers - Their previous service in D Highways Department was also on the post of Overseers - Their claim for benefit of previous service on lower post of Overseer for determining seniority on higher post of Assistant Engineer cannot be accepted - Appellants were promoted as Assistant Engineers much later than respondents- E Assistant Engineers (direct recruits) had started discharging their functions as Assistant Engineers in RD Department - Respondents had completed five years service as Assistant Engineers and under the relevant rules were eligible to be promoted as Assistant Executive Engineers - Consequently, they were duly promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer - F Thus, the action taken by State Government cannot be said to be either arbitrary or violative of Art. 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. Quota for promotion to post of Assistant Executive G Engineer - Held: For promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (RD), more than one mode of recruitment i.e. promotion from Assistant Engineer (RD) and recruitment by transfer from the feeder category of Junior Engineer and Senior Draughting Officer have been recognised and H 840 TAMIL NADU RURAL DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS ASSON. v. SEC. 841 TO GOVT RURAL DEV. DEPT stipulated - Further, on the post of Assistant Engineer (RD) A there is more than one mode of recruitment i.e. direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer from the feeder category of Overseers - Therefore, rules providing ratio of 6:2:~ cannot be said to be violative of Art. 14 or 16 of the Constitution - Further, fixation of quota/ratio is the prerogative B of the executive and in the instant case, the ratio was fixed in the service rules framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 14, 16 and 309. The members of the appellant-Association (appellants) were initially appointed as 'Overseers' in the C then Highways and Rural Works Department, where, even after putting in 20 years service as such, they did not have any promotional avenues. By G.O. Ms No. 263 Rural Department dated 27.12.1996, the Government of Tamil Nadu decided to set up a separate Engineering Wing for D the RD Department and the posts created, namely, Assistant Engineers (AE), Assistant Executive Engineers (AEE), Executive Engineers (EE) and Superintending Engineers (SE), in the RD Department were filled up by drawing personnel from other technical Departments of E the State Government on deputation basis as an interim arrangement. On 25.5.1998, the date on which the absorption and recruitment of engineering personnel belonging to other Departments were notified, the appellants were occupying the posts of Overseer in the F Highways Department. On 8.3.1999, the appellants gave their consent to be absorbed as Overseers in the RD Department. On 26.9.1997, the State Public Servicd' Commission invited applications for the posts of Assistant Engineers in the RD Department. The G respondents-Assistant Engineers were directly recruited from 24.11.1998 to November, 1999. The appellants were promoted as Assistant Engineers on 2.9.2002, having been given the benefit of service as Overseers in the RD Department from the year 1997. The representations of H 842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R. A the appellants to effect promotions to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers (AEE), RD Department from the post of Assistant Engineer on 1 :1 ratio between Assistant Engineer-direct recruits and Assistant Engineers-promotees by transfer of service in the RD B department, did not yield fruits. They filed a writ petition seeking issuance of a writ declaring Rule 3(2) of Notification-Ill of G.O.Ms. No. 15, RD Department dated 25.1.2000, as ultra vires in the absence of fixation of quota between AE-direct recruits and promotees on the post of c AEE. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. In the instant appeals, the grievance of the appellants was (i) that they could not be deprived of their past service; and (ii) there ought to be a rati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.