M. Someswaran and R. Viswanathan vs State of Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Association of Tamil Nadu Highways Engineers and Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Special Government Pleader takes notice.

We do not find any justification to interfere in the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ''the tribunal''), by

which the tribunal has dismissed the two original applications filed by the writ petitioners. The petitioners, in fact, had no axe to grind and there is a

finding by the tribunal at the end of paragraph 9 of its order that the applicants were not able to demonstrate as to how their rights have been

infringed or affected.

This was a case where 269 posts were advertised, out of which 242 posts were earmarked for the persons holding a degree in civil engineering,

while 27 posts were earmarked for the persons holding a degree in mechanical engineering. In the selection, exactly 242 persons have been

selected having civil engineering qualification. The petitioners are also among them. So also, 27 persons have been selected having mechanical

engineering qualification. It is not the case of the petitioners that amongst the civil engineers, some one who is inferior to them in the score has been

placed above the petitioners. The petitioners are complaining only against the common list of the selectees. The common list was prepared with the

sole idea that whenever a particular vacancy arises, the person higher in the score would be posted against that vacancy. The complaint of the

petitioners seems to be that because the 27 persons having the mechanical engineering degree qualification have been included in the list, their

posting is affected and that there should be a separate list for the civil engineering graduates and a separate list for the mechanical engineering

graduates so that they go higher up in the list. In short, the petitioners seek caderisation of those who are having the civil engineering qualification

and of those who are having the mechanical engineering qualification. Such caderisation is not contemplated in the rules at all. On the other hand,

there is only one cadre, which is a common cadre of civil engineers and mechanical engineers and there is a specific power given to a particular

authority that the said authority may include some persons who are having the qualification of mechanical engineering or automobile engineering.

This is obviously with a view to take care of the mechanical problems that may arise in the department and there should certainly be such

problems. The petitioners urged before the tribunal that because of the common list, their position has been brought down and they did not get the

posting earlier to those who were having the mechanical engineering degree and were placed above the petitioners. The argument is unsound for

the simple reason that if there was only one cadre contemplated of the ''Assistant Engineers'', the selected persons like the petitioners cannot insist

upon the caderisation contrary to the rules. Again, the petitioners'' case can be comparable only against the civil engineers and it is not their case

that though they have secured better score than the other civil engineer, they have been put below. The petitioners have their difficulty only against

the mechanical engineers, who, because of the cadre rules, have been included in the common cadre of ''Assistant Engineers''. The difficulty seems

to us not that of the selection, but that of the posting. The contention appears to be that because the 27 mechanical engineers have been included in

the cadre, the petitioners have been pushed down below. If that was the contention, it would have been better for the petitioners to challenge the

rules. The petitioners have not challenged the caderisation rules. The petitioners merely submit that there have to be two separate lists. The tribunal

has, in our opinion, rightly considered the question and dismissed the original applications.

In support of his contention, Mr. Sridhar relied on the ruling reported in S. Gopa Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and Kerala Public Service

Commission, . In our opinion, this case has no application at all because this case pertained to the selection, where there was no separate quota

fixed for the civil engineers and the mechanical engineers. In our case, there was a specific quota of 242 civil engineers and 27 mechanical

engineers so that the persons who appeared for the examination knew exactly as to how many posts were available for being selected. This being

the major difference, this case has no application.

The third question argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the placement of the mechanical engineers was made in the general

turns and not as per the reservations. For this, it was essential for the petitioners to join all those mechanical engineers as parties whose placements

have been challenged in the writ petitions, because they would be the affected parties. The petitioners have chosen two of them in their so called

representative capacity, which was not permissible for the writ petitioners. Therefore, even this point has no meaning. The writ petitions have no

merits and the same are dismissed. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.Nos.705 to 707 of 2003 are also dismissed.

Lastly, the learned counsel says that some mechanical engineers have been appointed to man the posts meant for the civil engineers. That is

entirely a separate subject and the petitioners would be at liberty to raise their grievance before the appropriate authorities, if they so choose.