AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.—The petitioners were the applicants before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 5118 of 2000 etc. batch. The challenge is to the order of the Tribunal dated 22.03.2002 dismissing their applications. The petitioners were working as Draughtsmen in the Tamil Nadu State Highways Engineering Services. They were all diploma holders. Under the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, promotion to the post of Junior Engineers meant for diploma holders and appointment to the post of Assistant Engineers by way of direct recruitment was determined, by which 25% of the posts have been ear marked for the diploma holders who are working in the feeder category of Draughtsmen, while 75% is meant for being appointed as Assistant Engineers by way of direct recruitment through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. When the petitioners were aspiring for their promotions and since the vacancies to be filled up by way of direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineers was getting delayed, the petitioners came to be promoted and appointed as Junior Engineers under Rule 39(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules through orders dated 06.02.1999, apart from the fact that Rule 39(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules itself is specific to the effect that in public interest owing to an emergency which has arisen to fill immediately a vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of a higher category in a service or class by promotion from lower category and that there would be undue delay in making such promotion in accordance with the rules, the appointing authority can temporarily promote a person, who possesses the qualifications prescribed for the post, otherwise than in accordance with the Rules. Clause 4 of the appointment order made it clear that the petitioners were all promoted purely on temporary basis and that they would be reverted to their original position at any time without prior notice and without assigning any reasons. It also stated that the orders of promotion would not confer any rights in the post of Junior Engineer or for any claim in the seniority in that post. In the above stated circumstances, while the petitioners were all functioning as Junior Engineers on temporary basis, by Notification No. 36 of 1995, the State Government took steps for filling up the posts of Assistant Engineers by way of direct recruitment i.e. 75% quota meant for the degree holders. At that point of time it was noted that the post meant for diploma holders in the category of Junior Engineers was already in excess and that the only post available was meant to be filled up by way of direct recruitment from among the degree holders to the post of Assistant Engineers. The said Notification No. 36 of 1995 was challenged by the Association representing the Junior Engineers in O.A.No. 444 of 1996. While entertaining the said Original Application, an order of interim stay of the notification was also granted. However, subsequently, the interim stay application in M.A.No. 4037 of 1996 in O.A.No. 444 of 1996 came to be disposed of by an order dated 21.08.1996. The Tribunal, while dismissing the said application held as under in paragraph Nos. 10 and 11:
From the above it emerges, that the diploma holders are in excess of the ratio and so, by virtue of the impugned notifications, recruitments by the direct recruitment are sought to be made from degree holders to arrive at a situation of bringing the position in tune with the ratio, envisaged under Rule 18 of the Special Rules. So, the stay granted has to be necessarily vacated.
In the result, the M.A. is allowed and the stay granted on 25.01.1996 shall stand vacated.
Though the main O.A. No. 444 of 1196 is stated to be pending, in effect, the order in the stay petition has virtually determined the fate of the diploma holders. The said order of the Tribunal dated 21.08.1996 has become final, since no further challenge was made to the said order. The claim of the petitioners in the present Original Application was to quash the order dated 14.07.2000 in and by which the petitioners were sought to be reverted to the post of Draughting Officers or Junior Draughting Officers. The same was resisted by the contesting respondents herein, namely the State, by pointing out that this very issue now raised by the petitioners have already been determined in the Interlocutory Application in O.A.No. 444 of 1996 and therefore, the contentions of the petitioners cannot be examined once over again.
The Tribunal while considering the claim of the petitioners on merits has held that the petitioners cannot aspire to trespass into the post meant for direct recruitment namely 75% of vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineers, that the petitioners were all promoted by invoking Rule 39(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, by which appointments by way of promotion was purely a temporary one and therefore, no valid right has accrued to the petitioners in order to challenge the reversion ordered by the State Government in the order dated 14.07.2000. The Tribunal has also noted that by virtue of the orders passed in the Stay Application in O.A.No. 444 of 1996 dated 21.08.1996, the issue has already been decided against the petitioners. The Tribunal ultimately rejected the Original Applications. It is also noted by the Tribunal in its order that all the petitioners were relieved in pursuance of the order of reversion passed against them and therefore, nothing survived in the stay petition. The Original Applications were therefore dismissed on merits. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have come forward with these writ petitions challenging the order of the Tribunal.
Mr. Umapathi, learned Counsel representing the petitioners while assailing the order of the Tribunal contended that though the orders of promotion dated 06.02.1999 came to be issued under Rule 39(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, a reading of paragraph No. 5 of the order discloses that their promotion was on a regular basis since it imposed a condition that the petitioners will hold the post and that any subsequent request for reversion to the post of Draughting Officers cadre would not be accepted under any circumstances. According to the learned Counsel by virtue of the interim orders granted by the Tribunal during the pendency of the Original Applications as well as during the pendency of these writ petitions, the petitioners were all continuing in the post of Junior Engineers and that some of them have also been promoted on regular basis. The learned Counsel therefore contended that the Tribunal ought to have set aside the reversion order dated 14.07.2000 and maintained the promotion ordered in the order dated 06.02.1999.
As against the above submissions, Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader contended that the rights of the petitioners were all governed by Rule 39(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and Rule 39(e) specifically provides that such promotee shall not be regarded as a probationer in the higher category or be entitled by reason only to such promotion to any preferential claim for future promotion to such higher category and the petitioners'' aspirations to hold on to the promoted post on a regular basis cannot be sustained. Learned Special Government Pleader also pointed out that apart from the stipulations contained in the promotion order dated 06.02.1999, Rules 39(e) also specifically provided that such appointments are liable to be terminated at any time without any notice and without assigning any reason and therefore, when the appointments of the petitioners to the promoted post came to be reverted to their original post of Draughting Officers, in the order dated 14.07.2000, inasmuch as the direct recruitment Assistant Engineers through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission had to be accommodated in the substantive posts, the Tribunal''s order in having rejected the petitioners Original Application cannot be found fault with.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Special Government Pleader, we find force in the stand of the learned Special Government Pleader. On merits, the conclusions of the Tribunal are well founded. Admittedly, the petitioners were all promoted temporarily as Junior Engineers by order dated 06.02.1999 by invoking Rule 39(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. Under the said Rule, as stated earlier, any promotion is made on a temporary basis only to meet an emergency situation to fill immediately a vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of a higher category by way of promotion from the lower category and that such promotions are resorted to when it is bound that there would be undue delay in making such promotion in accordance with the rules. In the case on hand, even in the earlier proceedings when the petitioners challenged the notification issued by the State Government for filling up such number of vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineer by way of direct recruitment through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the Tribunal has found that in the category of Junior Engineers meant for diploma holders to be filled up by way of promotion from among the Draughting Officers, they have already exceeded the permissible limit namely 25% of the posts and therefore, the steps taken by the State Government to fill up the remaining 75% posts of Assistant Engineers by way of direct recruitment cannot be interfered with. The petitioners have not challenged that order of the Tribunal dated 21.08.1996 passed in the Miscellaneous Application in O.A.No. 444 of 1996. It is also not the case of the petitioners that the State Government was attempting to fill up more than 75% of the posts meant for direct recruits. In such circumstances, when the selection process has been concluded and the selected candidates were to be accommodated in the respective posts, the reversion of the petitioners was resorted to. In other words, the temporary promotions made under Rule 39(a)(i) of the petitioners to meet the emergency situation having come to an end, in the light of the selection of the regular direct recruit Assistant Engineers, the petitioners are bound to give way for accommodating them to be filled by way of regular appointees. The Tribunal has therefore rightly found that the appointment of the petitioners being under Rule 39(a)(i) by virtue of the powers as provided under Rule 39(e) of the said Rules, the State Government was fully empowered to resort to reversion of the petitioners to their original post of Draughting Officers by terminating the temporary promotion ordered on 16.02.1999.
As far as the statement contained in paragraph No. 5 of the order dated 06.02.1999, a mere statement that if the Draughting Officers want to join duty in the post of Junior Engineer, it would be construed that they were willing to hold the post and any subsequent request for reversion to the post of Draughting Officers cadre would not be accepted, cannot be taken to mean that their temporary promotion to the post of Junior Engineer was to a regular post on a permanent basis. The order dated 06.02.1999 has to be read as a whole. When it is read in that manner, it is explicitly clear that the appointment itself was made under Rule 39(a)(i) and that paragraph No. 4 of the order reiterate that the promotion was purely temporary and they would be reverted to their original post at any time and that the said temporary post would not confer any right in the post of Junior Engineer or for claiming any seniority in that post. Therefore, the petitioners had no right much less legally enforceable one in order to claim that the temporary promotions granted to them by order dated 06.02.1999 should (sic) their benefit on a permanent basis and that they can never be reverted to the original post of Draughting Officers, even if the circumstances under which the temporary promotions granted to them cease to exist.
Looked at from any angle, we do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioners and therefore, the order of the Tribunal in having rejected the petitioners Original Applications therefore are perfectly justified and we do not find any flaw in the said order in order to interfere with the same in these writ petitions. These writ petitions therefore fail and the same are dismissed. If the stand of the petitioners that some of them have been promoted on a regular basis is true, we make it clear that the dismissal of the writ petitions will not affect such regular promotions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.