V. BALASUBRAMANIAM ETC. ETC. versus TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 228 · Decided: 21-09-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
V. BALASUBRAMANIAM ETC. ETC. 
v. 
TAMIL· NADU HOUSING BOARD & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 21, 1987 
Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act, 1961/Madras State Hous-
ing Board Regulations: Section 16-19/Regu/ation 28 and State Govern-
ment Memorandum dated 26.2.1971-Junior Engineers promoted to 
the cadre of Assistant Engineers even though they had not put in five 
years service--Whether valid and legal-Memorandum-Whether a 
mere erratum. 
Words and phrases-'Subject to'-Meaning of. 
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board made Madras State Housing 
D 
Board Service Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred under 
E 
sections 17 and 19 of the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act, 1961. 
· The Board, by its Resolution No. 772 dated March 20, 1963, made and 
adopted the service regulations in regard to the service conditions of 
officers and servants of the Board and sent them to Government for 
approval under section 161(3) of the Act. 
y
For promotion to the cadre of Assistant Engineers, the Board 
prescribed S years qualifying service in the case of Junior Engineers 
and 10 years in the case of Supervisors. While the matter was pending 
with the Government. For approval, the Board altered the period of S 
F 
years' qualifying service in the case of Junior Engineers to 3 years, by 
its Resolution No. 368 dated 8.12.1964 and forwarded the same to the 
Government. Before the approval was received, the Board, by its Reso-
lution No. 467 dated 8.11.1965, again prescribed the qualifying service 
of S years in respect of Junior Engineers, since, according to it, that 
would be in accordance with the mies governing the Madras Engineer-
G 
Ing Service in the Government. By G.O. Ms. No. 156 (Housing) depart-
ment of Labour dated 14.5.1969, the Government approved the regula-
tions showing 3 years as qualifying service, but later issued a 
memorandum dated 26.2.1971, styled as an erratum, substituting the 
words "3 years" occurring under the sub-head "by promotion of (i) 
Junior Engineers", by the words "5 years". 
H 
228 
-
V. BALASUBRAMANIAM v. T.N. HOUSING BOARD 
229 
The appellants and other Supervisors who were working in the 
Engineering Subordinate Service of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board 
filed writ petitions challenging the promotions of respondents No. 2 to 
11 and respondent No. 2 in the writ petitions in the High Court, who 
were working as Junior Engineers, to the cadre of Assistant Engineers, 
even though they had not put in 5 years' service in the cadre of Junior 
Engineers, contrary to the regulations of the Board. The writ petitions 
were -Opposed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the Junior 
Engineers who had been impleaded as respondents in the writ petitions. 
It was contended by the Junior Engineers who had been promoted 
as Assistant Engineers that the qualification prescribed by the regula-
tions in respect of Junior Engineers was 3 years' service as stated in the 
Government Order dated 14.5.1969 and the memorandum dated 
26.2.1971 which had been issued as an erratum was liable to be ignored 
since it had not been issued by following the procedure prescribed for 
modifying a regulation. 
A 
B 
c 
A Single Judge of the High Court directed the State Government 
D 
to be impleaded as a party for ascertaining whether the memorandum 
dated 26.2.1971 was only an erratum for the purpose of correcting a 
clerical mistake that had crept into the Government Order or whether 
it was in fact a modification of the earlier Government Order. The State 
Government tiled an affidavit explaining the reasons for issuing the 
"j erratum. The Single Judge concluded that the period of "3 years" 
E 
mentioned in the Government Order dated 14 .5 .1969 was as a result of 
clerical mistake, and that the memorandum dated 26.2.1971 was really 
an erratum and not a modification of the regulations as approved by the 
Government and held that the promotion of respondent Nos. 2 to 11 and 
respondent No. 2 in the writ petitions before the High Court from the 
cadre of Junior Engineers to the cadre of Assistant Engineers was con-
F 
'\ trary to the regulations as they had not completed 5 years' service in the 
· cadre of Junior Engineers when they were promoted as Assistant 
Engineers and, therefore, their promotions were liable to be set aside. 
In the appeals before the Division Bench, a new plea was urged on 
behalf of the appellants that the petitioners in the writ petitions were G 
not entitled to the issue of a writ in the nature of man

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