Supreme Court of India
ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERSversusGOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
- Citation
- 2017 INSC 906
- Decided
- 14 September 2017
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The 1985 Tamil Nadu Engineering Service Special Rules govern the matter, the 3:1 ratio is lawful, Overseers and Civil Draftsmen are eligible for promotion by transfer, and direct recruitment appointments do not usurp the direct‑recruitment quota.
Summary
The Association of Engineers appealed against the Tribunal’s order directing that vacancies for Assistant Engineer be filled in a 3:1 ratio of direct recruitment to recruitment by transfer. The dispute centered on whether the 1985 Tamil Nadu Engineering Service Special Rules, which govern promotion and recruitment, permitted such a ratio and whether Overseers and Civil Draftsmen (including Grade II and III) were eligible for promotion by transfer. The Court examined the historical evolution of the rules from 1972 through amendments in 1983 and the 1985 Rules, concluding that the 1985 Rules supersede earlier provisions and expressly allow promotion of Overseers and Civil Draftsmen by transfer provided they meet qualification and experience requirements. It further held that candidates appointed through direct recruitment are counted towards the 75% direct‑recruitment quota and do not illegally usurp the transfer quota. Consequently, the Tribunal’s ratio was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Tribunal’s 3:1 ratio of direct recruitment to transfer for Assistant Engineer posts is consistent with the Tamil Nadu Engineering Service Special Rules, 1985.
- Whether Overseers and Civil Draftsmen (including Grade II and III) are eligible for promotion by transfer to Assistant Engineer under the 1985 Rules.
- Whether appointment of such candidates by direct recruitment amounts to illegal usurpation of the quota reserved for direct recruitment.
Subjects
promotionrecruitmentquotadirect recruitmenttransfer promotionTamil Nadu Engineering Service Special RulesAssistant Engineerratio 3:1eligibility
Judgment
[2017] l l S.C.R. 713
ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERS A
v.
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 995 of2009)
SEPTEMBER 14,2017 B
[ARUN MISHRA AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Tamilnadu Engineering Service Special Rules, 1985 - rr. 2,
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 ofAssistant 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
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 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
D
parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
ORDER
1. The appellant has come up in appeals, questioning the
E 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.
F 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)
G 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 715
NADU & ORS.
the item 'Supervisors' in Col(!) the following shall be added, A
namcly:-
"Provided further than an Overseer or Head Draftsman or
Civil D'Man (possessing diploma in Civil Engineering and
A.M.l.E. (India) qualification shall be eligible for appointment
as Junior Engineer if he has rendered service for not less than B
three years'."
3. As per the aforesaid amendment made, the Overseers or Head
Draftsmen or Civil Draftsmen possessing the qualification of Diploma in
Civil Engineering and the qualification ofA.M.I.E. (India) were eligible
forthe posts ofJunior Engineers. It was followed by another Government c
order, i.e., G.O.Ms.No.1356 dated 2.8.1980, which contained the proposal
of the Government in paragraph 3, with respect to the promotion to the
post of Junior Engineers and Supervisors, equivalent to Assistant
Engineers and Junior Engineers respectively. A suggestion was made
that quota should be filled up by way of transfer from the cadre of Head
Draftsmen and Draftsmen, on acquiring the degree, qualification or its D
equivalent. Paragraph 3 is extracted hereunder:
"3. The Commission, is of the view that a person holding the
post of Overseer and Draftsmen, Grade II and III carrying a
lower pay cannot be equated to a person holding the higher post
of Junior Engineer (now Assistant Engineer) on acquiring the E
degree qualification for the purpose of appointment to the still
higher post of Assistant Engineers (now Assistant Executive
Engineers) and that while considering him for promotion to a
higher post, the rank held by him and the pay drawn by him in
the lower post cannot be wholly ignored. The Commission is of F
the opinion that the provision made in the amendment issued in
1972. viz. Automatic conversion of Overseers/Head Draftsmen/
Civil Draftsman as Assistant on acquiringA.M.l.E. qualification
with three years service is not correct and that the anomaly
should be set right. The Commission has therefore, suggested
that Head Draftsmen and Draftsman Grade alone, whose scale G
of pay is higher than those of Junior Engineers and Supervisors
(now Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer respectively), on
acquiring the degree qualification or its equivalent, be assigned
rank below the last Junior Engineer (now Assistant Engineer)
selected by the Commission in the year in which they acquire
H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] ll S.C.R.
A the qualification. The Government has decided to accept the
recommendations of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
in this regard."
4. The same culminated into an amendment of the Rules. The
following amendment had been made in the Rules, on 6.1.1983, which
B came into force on 2.8.1980 :
"AMENDMENT
In the said special Rules, in Part !I, in Branch !, in schedule II,
for the third proviso in column (2) against the post "Supervisors"
in column (I) thereof, the following proviso shall be substituted,
c namely:-
" Provided also that the Head Draftsman or Draftsman,
Grade I possessing A.M.1.E. (India) or B.E. Degree qualifications
shall be eligible for appointment as Junior Engineer if he has
rendered service for not less than three years".
D
5. The proposal had been accepted by amending the rules the
posts of Junior Engineers re-designated as Assistant Engineers were
required to be filled up from the grade of Head Draftsmen and Draftsmen
Grade I, possessing the reqltisite qualification of AMIE or B.E. Degree
and 3 years service.
E
6. Thereafter, another set of Rules had come into force, called
Tamil Nadu Engineer Service Special Rules, 1985. Rule 2 deals with
the appointment to several categories ofotlicers and the method of their
recruitment. We are concerned with the promotion to the post ofAssistant
Engineers. which is prescribed in Category No.5 of Rule 2(a) of the
F aforesaid Rules of 1985. The relevant provisions are extracted below:
"'2. Appointment:- (a) Appointment to the several categories in
this branch shall be made as follows:
"'Category Method of recruitment
G
5.Assistant ( l) Direct recruitment; or
Engineers (2) Recruitment by transfer from
Junior Engineers, Overseers, Head
Draftsmen or Civil Draftsmen of the
Tamil Nadu Engineering Subordinate
Service."
H
ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERS v. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL 717
NADU & ORS.
Rule 5 of Rule of 1989 provided the eligibility criteria, method of A
. recruitment and qualifications. For the purpose of recruitment to the
post of Assistant Engineers, Rule 5 is extracted hereunder:
"5. Qualification'' -No person shall be eligible for appointment
to the category and by the method mentioned in Columns (I)
and (2) of the table below unless he possesses the qualifications B
prescribed in the corresponding entry in column (3) thereof:-
"Table Category Method of Qualifications
recruitment
(I) (2) (3)
c
Assistant Dired recruit- (I) Must possess the B.E.
Engineer ment degree in Civil Engineering; or
(2) (I) Must have passes in
Sections A and B of the
Institution of Engineers D
Examinations under
Engineering branch, subject to
the following fwther conditions
namely:-
(i) should furnish evidence of E
having undergone practical
training 10 surveying for a
period of not less than one year;
or
(ii) should have put in service
for a period of not less than one F
year m Public Works
Department as Overseer or
Junior Engineer; or
(iii) should hold the Upper
Subordinate or L.C.E. diploma G
of the College of Engineering,
Guindy or L.C.E. diploma
awarded by the State Board of
Technical Education and
Training, Madras, and
H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] II S.C.R.
A
I (II) Practical experience for a
I period of not less than three
years before or after f'ISSing
I Sections A and B of the
Institution of Engineers
Examinations; and
B
(3) Must not have completed or
will not complete 28 years of
age on the first day of July of
the year in which the selection
for awointment is made;
c Provided that qther things being
equal preferenc" shall be given
to those who have undergone
one year of apprenticeship
training mder the Government
of htdia Scheme or the State
D Government Apprenticeship
Scheme.
Recruitment Must have icquired the
Transfer following qualification after
entering service as Jw:tior
Engineer, namely:-
E
(!) Degree in Civil Engineering
or:
(2) (I) A Pass in Sections A and
B of th! Institution o
F Engineering Examination under
Civil Engineering branch
subject to the following fu-ther
cooditions, nrurely:-
(i) should furnish eviden:e of
G having unlergone proctical
training in surveying for a
period ofnot less than one year;
er
H
ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERS v. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL 719
NADU & ORS.
A
(ii) should haw pit in service
for a period of not less than one
)ell!' m the l'lblic Woiks
U:plrtrrent as Overseer or
Jmicr Engi=, or, Mld:as;"
B
(iii) should hdd the Upper
&ibordimte er L.CE dip!Otnl
cf tl:e Colleg:: cf Engireeri!ll,
Guindy, or LCE. Diplonn
aoordal by the State Brerd o c
Technical Edicatirn and
Trainirg
It is apparent from a reading of the aforesaid provisions made in Rule 5
of the Rules of 1985 that an Overseer or Junior Engineer can also seek D
the claim for direct recruitment as Assistant Engineer, in case he possess
the requisite qualification, and had put in service for a period ofnot less
than one year in the Public Works Department as an Overseer or Junior
Engineer.
For recruitment by way of transfer, as per Rule 2 can be filled from E
Junior Engineers, Overseers, Head Draftsmen and Civil Draftsmen. It
appears that grades of Draftsmen have been done away with and
merged into category of Civil Draftsman. The aforesaid Rule 5 of Rules
of 1985 make it clear one should possess the requisite qualification, as
prescribed in the aforesaid rules, and had put in service for not less than F
one year in the Public Works Department as Overseer or Junior Engineer.
Thus, there was clear departure made in the Rules of I 985 that holds
the field today, from amendment made in 1985 w.ef 1980.
7. It was pointed out by Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant, that as a matter of fact the ratio of G
3: I is not maintained. He urged two submissions; firstly, the Overseers
and Civil Draftsman Grade II and Grade III could not have been recruited
by way of transfer to the post of Assistant Engineer; and secondly, that
in the guise of the order of the Tribunal, a wrong is being done, by virtually
making 56% recruitment on the posts of Assistant Engineers by way of
H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017) I 1 S.C.R.
A direct recruitment, and 44% recruitment way of transfer. More posts
than reserved as per quota arc being occupied by Overseer; and Ci' ii
Draftsmen.
8. Ou the other hand, Mr. V. Prakash, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that ground urged as
B to ratio is based <!>n misapprehension. He stated at the outset. that the
ratio as ordered by the Tribunal is 3: I, that is to say that out of 100 posts,
75 posts have to be filled up by way of direct recruitment from the
eligible persons artd 25% posts have to be filled up by way of transfer by
promotion of the qandidates, i.e., Overseers and Civil Draftsman as per
1985 Rules is being maintained. The Rules of 1985 clearly holds the field
c and thus, there is no reason to make interference with the impugned
order.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we nrc of the
considered view that though initially in 1972, the Ruic was that Overseers
and Draftsmen Gr. II and Ill could be recruited by way of transfer to
D the posts ofAssistant Engineer, in case they had acquired 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 "~ef 1980, and Overseers and
Civil Draftsman Grade II and III were made ineligible for promotion as
E Assistant Engineer. The eligibility was confined to Head Draftsmen
Gr. I. Thus, the position of 1972 was altered and given a go bye till 1985
rules came into force.
10. Then again position had been changed by the Rules of 1985.
A bare reading of~ule 5, read with Ruic 2(a) of Rules of 1985 makes it
F 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
is clear that differentiation of grades of Draftsmen had been done away
with and all Civil Draftsmen had been made eligible including Overseer
under Rule 2 of 1985 Rules.
G
11. Thus, we find no force in the submissions urged by learned
counsel for the appellant, as the Rules of 1985 holds the field, and the
action of the respondents is in accordance with law.
12. With respect to the alleged illegal usurpation of the quota of
H direct recruitment. It is apparent that inter alia the incumbents, holding
ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERS v. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL 72 l
NADU & ORS.
the post. in the Public Works Department, of Overseers or Junior Engineer A
after serving for one year becomes eligible to stake their claim to the
post of direct recruitment. Thus, if they arc 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 of fact. on being appointed
by way of process of direct recruitment they arc not to be treated as
B
recruited against the quota reserved for recruitment by way of transfer.
Once they have been selected by process of direct recruitment, they
have to be counted towards quota of 75% reserved for the direct
recruitment.
13. Tn view of the aforesaid discussion, and order passed by
Tribunal there is no room to entertain the submission urged by the learned C
senior counsel appearing for the appellant. To put the doubt at rest, in
our opinion the order of the Tribunal is quite clear. The relevant portion
of the order of the Administrative Tribunal, is extracted hereunder:
"The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Advertisement
No.9/94 and Publication of the results pursuant thereto are D
quashed to the extent that it is not in conformity with the ratio of
3: I. Those who were selected in this selection shall be given
appointments only to the extent of3 by way of direct recruitment
and I by way of recruitment by transfer from the feeder
categories mentioned in Ruic 2(a)(5) of the Tamil Nadu E
Engineering Service Special Rules. Out of the 15 vacancies the
Applicants in the 0.As. shall be considered along with other
feeder categories mentioned in the said Rule 2(a)(5) of Special
Rules for the Tamil Nadu Engineering Service recruitment by
transfer and appointment shall be made in the above I out of
every 4 vacancies. Future vacancies shall be filled up in the F
above ratio, till altered by any Statutory Amendment.
O.A.4563/94 and 4564/94 fail and shall stand dismissed."
In view of aforesaid discussion, the second submission is hereby
~=~· G
14. The appeals are found bereft of merits same deserves to be
and are hereby dismissed.
Devika Gujral Appeals llismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "promotion"Sign in to search