S.JANAKUMARAN v. The Government of Tamilnadu

13. S.JANAKUMARAN 14. K.BANUDHASAN ..Petitioner in W.P.No.10577/2009vs.1. The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Highways Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2. The Chief Engineer (Gl.), Highways Department, Public Works Department Campus,..Respondents 1 & 2 Chepauk, Chennai -5. in all WPs.3. T.Natanasabapthy4. T.HariBabu5. V.Nagarajan6. A.Azhagappan7. M.Rajandran8. S.Gnanamuthu9. M.Balasubramanian10.V.Shanmugam11.K.Rathinakumar12.G.Panneerselvam13.R.Ramsamy14.S.Gandhi15.A.Pachimuthu16.C.Gopalan17.M.Govindasamy18.T.Srinivasan19.C.Venkatachalam20.V.Chandrasekaran21.K.Chikkandar Meeran Moheedin22.V.Rajagopal23.K.Thankavel ..Respondents 3 to 23 in WP.Nos.8870, 9093 of 200824.P.Subramanian25.A.Jachandra Suriya Narayanan26.M.Chidambaram27.N.Sabtharishi28.V.Velu ..Respondents 24 to 28 in WP.Nos.8870 of 2008 ** RR 24 to 28 impleaded as per order dated 9.7.2008 in M.P.No.3 of 2008 in W.P.No.8870 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ K.N.NanjundanR.Subramani ..Respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.No.27094 of 2008(RR3 and 4 impleaded as per Court order dated 28.11.2008 in M.P.No.2/08 in W.P.No.27694/08 by NPVJ)K.N.NanjundanP.SubramanianA.Jayachandra Suriya NarayananM.ChidambaramN.SaptharishiK.S.Sadanandam ..Respondents 3 to 8 in W.P.No.9260 of 2009(RR3 to 7 impleaded as per order dated 26.5.2009 in M.P.No.2/09 and R8 impleaded as per Court order dated 26.5.2009 in M.P.No.3/09 in W.P.No.9260/09 by MMSJ)R.RubramaniP.SubramanianM.ChidambaramA.Jayachandra Suriya Narayanan K.N.Nanjundan ..Respondents 3 to 7 inW.P.No.10183/09(RR3 to 7 impleaded as per order dated 24.6.2009, by KNBJ in MP.2 to 6/09 in W.P.No.10183/09.Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of a Writ of (1) Declaration to declare theappointments of respondents 3 to 23 as Assistant Divisional Engineersas illegal, void and unconstitutional and consequently to direct therespondents 1 and 2 to revert the respondents 3 to 23 to the post ofJunior Engineers and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to giveretrospective notional promotion to the petitioners as AssistantDivisional Engineers without following 3 : 1 ratio between AssistantEngineers and Junior Engineers, if Junior Engineers who rendered 10years service after becoming Junior Engineer are not available, fromthe date on which the Junior Engineers who are junior to petitionerswere appointed as Assistant Divisional Engineer as aforesaid(WP.Nos.8870 of 2008 and 9093 of 2008) (2) Mandamus, directing the respondents not to promote theJunior Engineers with less than 10 years of Service in the categoryof Junior Engineers in Violation to the rules and consequently directthe respondents to promote the Qualified Assistant Engineers as per https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rules in the existing vacancies of Assistant Divisional Engineers.(W.P.No.27694 of 2008)(3) Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from promoting theJunior Engineers with less than 10 years of service in the categoryof Junior Engineers to Assistant Divisional Engineer in violation tothe rules and till the disposal of Similar W.P.Nos.8870/08, 9093/08,and 27694/08. (W.P.No.9260 of 2009)(4) Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from promoting JuniorEngineers who have less than 10 years of Service in the category ofJunior Engineers as Assistant Divisional Engineers till the finaldisposal of the W.P.Nos.8870, 9093 and 27694 of 2008 (W.P.Nos.9838 &9839/09, 9857 to 9861 of 2009 and 10577 of 2009)(5) Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from appointing anyJunior Engineer as Assistant Divisional Engineer in HighwaysDepartment by recruitment by transfer before rendering a minimum of10 years of service after hearing Junior Engineer as mandated underthe Special rules to Tamil Nadu Highways Engineers Service till thefinal disposal of W.P.Nos.8870, 9093, and 27694 of 2008 by thisHon'ble Court (W.P.Nos.9842 of 2009, 10183 of 2009 & 10486 of 2009)For Petitioners 1, 4-6 in: Mr.V.Vijay Narayan,W.P.No.8870/08 & petitioner Senior Counsel forin W.P.No.10486/09 M/s.N.SubramaniyanFor Petitioners inW.P : Mr.N.SubramaniyanNos.9093/08 & 9842/09For R-8 in W.P.No.9260/08For Petitioner in : Mr.N.G.R.PrasadW.P.No.27694 of 2008 for M/s.R.RengaramanujamFor Petitioner in : Mr.K.Venkatachalapathy, SC W.P.No.9260 of 2009 for M/s.M.RavibharatiFor Petitioners in W.P. : Mr.M.A.GouthamanNos.9857-9861/09and 10577 of 2009 Mr. K. Venkataramani, S.C. for M/s. M.A. GowthamanFor Petitioners in : Mr.D.GopinathW.P.Nos.9838 & 9839/09For Petitioners in : Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, SCW.P.No.10183 of 2009 for M/s.S.Pattabiraman https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioners 2 & 3: Mr.K.Manikandanin W.P.No.8870/2008For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.P.S.Raman, in all these petitions Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.P.Muthukumar,GA and Ms.Pushpa : Mr.R.Thiagarajan, Sr.Counsel for M/s.M.Muthappan (RR-4, 5 &6) (in WP.No.10183/09) M/s.G.Ethirajulu (R-3) (in WP.No.10183/09) and RR-23 and 24 to 28 (WP.No.8870/08)For RR 3-5 and 13 in W.P.: Mr.L.ChandrakumarNo.8870 of 2008 & RR 13 in W.P.No.9093/2009 R-7 in W.P.No.10183 of 2009For RR 9, 10, 17 & 20 in: Mr.M.D.SubramaniamW.P.Nos.8870/08 & 9093/09For RR-11, 12, 19 in W.P. : Mr.G.EthirajuluNos.8870/08 & 3&4 in 27694/08For RR 6 and 16 in : Mr.Sivam SivanandrajW.P.No.8870/2008For RR 3 & 4 in : Mr.Pitty ParthasarathyW.P.No.27694/08 & 3-7in W.P.No.9260/09C O M M O N O R D E RIn view of the common questions involved in all these writpetitions, these writ petitions have been taken up for hearingtogether and disposed of by this common order.2. The tussle is between Assistant Engineers (B.E. Degree-holders) (hereinafter referred to as "AEs") and Junior Engineers(diploma-holders) (hereinafter referred to as "JEs"), who are workingin the Highways Department, in the matter of promotion to the post ofAssistant Divisional Engineers (hereinafter referred to as "ADEs").The petitioners in W.P.No.8870 of 2008 are AEs who challenge thepromotion of the respondents 3 to 23 as Assistant DivisionalEngineers from the post of JEs and to forbear the respondents 1 and 2from promoting the respondents 24 to 28. W.P.No.9842 of 2009 hasbeen filed by an association, whose members are AEs, seeking a writof Mandamus to forbear the department from promoting JEs as ADEsunless such JEs have put in 10 years of service as JEs. W.P.No.10183 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of 2009 has been filed by yet another similar association praying forsimilar relief. Writ petitions in W.P.Nos.9093 of 2008, 27694 of2008, 9260 of 2009, 9838, 9839, 9857 to 9861, 10183, 10486 and 10577of 2009 have been filed by AEs (B.E.Degree-holders) seeking for thesame relief.3.1. Before going into the actual issues involved, it is betterto recapitulate, the status and position of various officers in thedepartment with reference to the relevant service rules.3.2. There are two service rules governing the services ofvarious staff in the department. Upto to the level of JEs, they aregoverned by the "Special Rules to Tamil Nadu Highways EngineeringSubordinate Service" (hereinafter referred to as "EngineeringSubordinate Rules"). The post of AEs, ADEs and above are governed by"Special Rules to Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service"(hereinafter referred to as "Engineering Service Rules"). Thesection offices of the department are manned by either AEs or JEs.As a matter of fact, as per rule 18 of the Engineering Service Rules,75% of the section offices are to be manned by AEs and 25% are to bemanned by JEs. Insofar as the nature of work is concerned, there isabsolutely no difference between AEs and JEs. The next avenue ofpromotion for AEs as well as JEs is to the post of ADE. TheEngineering Service Rules prescribes the method of recruitment ofADEs and also it prescribes the qualification for the same.According to the said rules, the post of ADE is to be filled up onpromotion either from AEs or from JEs, but the same should be filledup in the ratio of 3 : 1. To put it otherwise, three vacanciesshould be filled up by promoting the AEs and the fourth vacancyshould be filled up by promoting a JE. After a JE is so promoted tothe post of ADE, he is brought under the Engineering Service Rules.Insofar as the qualification is concerned, the engineering graduates(B.E.Degree-holders) are eligible for appointment as AEs, whereas,the diploma-holders in engineering in various subjects are eligibleto be appointed as JEs. JEs can be appointed either by means ofdirect recruitment or promotion from the lower category such asDraughtsman, Overseer etc. Engineering Service Rules prescribes thequalification for promotion from the cadres of AE by prescribing thatan AE holding a B.E.Degree with five years of experience in the saidpost is eligible for promotion as ADE. Insofar as the JEs areconcerned, the experience needed is either 10 years or 18 years asthe case may be which would be stated in detail hereunder. 3.3. In the case on hand, the respondents 3 to 23, who were JEs,have been now promoted as ADEs against the quota earmarked for them,viz., ratio of 3 : 1. The respondents 24 to 28, who are also JuniorEngineers, are likely to be promoted. It is the common grievance ofall these petitioners that the respondents 3 to 28 are not eligibleto be promoted as ADEs for want of sufficient number of years ofexperience as it is claimed by them that number of years of service https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ only as JE is to be taken into consideration excluding the servicerendered as Overseer and Draughtsman as per the rules. It is furthercontended that in the event of there being no sufficient number ofqualified candidates in the cadre of JEs for the purpose of promotingthem as ADEs, the AEs should be appointed as against the vacanciesearmarked for JEs. With these two main contentions, the petitionershave come forward with these petitions.4.1. The common case of the petitioners in all these writpetitions is that the AEs, who are B.E. degree holders, wereappointed by direct recruitment through the Tamil Nadu Public ServiceCommission in Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service and they joinedin highways department during the year 1998 as against the vacanciesaccrued during the years 1993-1995 and 1995-1996. The respondents 3to 23 are diploma holders promoted as JEs from the category ofDraughting Officials during the year 1999 and afterwards and nowpromoted as ADEs.4.2. As already pointed out, the post of ADE is governed by theSpecial Rules to Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service. Theappointment to the post of ADE is made from the AEs having not lessthan five years of service by promotion and from the JEs with notless than ten years of service as JE or Draughtsman or not less thaneighteen years of service as Overseer, JE or Draughtsman byrecruitment by transfer in the ratio of 3 : 1 as per the relevantprovisions under Rule 9(a) and (b) and 10(b)(2)(a) and (b) or 10(b)(3)(a) and (b) of the Engineering Service Rules respectively.4.3. The petitioners further claim that a harmonious reading ofabove Rules 9(a) and (b) and 10 would show that the proviso to rule10 stipulating 10 years Draughtsman's service for a JE shall mean theservice rendered by a JE in the category of Draughtsman when postedas Draughtsman due to administrative reasons as stipulated under Rule9(b) and cannot be construed as the service rendered as Draughtsmanprior to promotion as JE. But, wrongly construing the said provisoto mean the service rendered as Draughtsman prior to promotion as JE,the respondents 3 to 23 were appointed as ADEs even before completionof 10 years of service in the category of JE, thereby marching overthe petitioners and other similarly placed AEs who are seniors.Further the respondents 1 and 2 even went to the extent of appointingthe unqualified JEs as ADEs.4.4. The further grievance of the petitioners is that an AE, whohas rendered more than ten years of service is stagnating withoutpromotion, whereas, a JE with four years of service is gettingpromotion and a Draughtsman, who was working in the lower category toAE got promoted as ADE, which is illegal and discriminatory. 4.5. The appointment of diploma holder (JE) with lesserexperience as ADE earlier to the degree holder (AE) with higher https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ qualification of B.E. Degree, is nothing but meriting the demeritsand demeriting the merits which is in violation of Rule of Equalitymandated under Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of Indiaand is also highly discriminatory.4.6. It is claimed that any construction of the rules that itpermits to take the service rendered in draughtsman category beforebecoming JE for the purpose of promotion to the post of ADE wouldmake the rules illegal, arbitrary and liable to be declared void.The petitioners submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 did notpublish the panel for the post of ADE in Tamil Nadu GovernmentGazettee as amended under Rule 4(a) of General Rules and hence, thepetitioners do not have the copy of the Government Orders appointingthe respondents 3 to 23 as ADEs and the petitioners were able to getthe details of the respondents only when the seniority list of JEswere communicated during the month of August 2007 and thereafter,they have come forward with these petitions.4.7. The same averments and grounds have been raised by theother petitioners in the other writ petitions filed by the individualAEs.5.1. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter refuting the claimsand contentions raised by the petitioners. In respect of the mainpoint raised by the petitioners, namely, whether ten years combinedservice in the post of JE and Draughtsman is sufficient forappointment to the post of ADE by recruitment by transfer of JEspossessing diploma in Engineering or a minimum service of ten yearsin the category of JE is required, it is stated by the respondents 1and 2 that as per the rule 10(b)(2)(b), it is mentioned as "Serviceas Junior Engineer or Draughtsman for a period of not less than tenyears" and therefore, it is clear that the JEs, who have put in a'combined service' of not less than ten years in the categories of JEand Draughtsman (now Junior Draughting Officer) are eligible forappointment as ADE and accordingly, while preparing the selectionlist of persons eligible for appointment as ADE, 'ten years of totalservice' is taken into account.5.2. The respondents 1 and 2 further stated in their counterthat the petitioners joined the highways department as AEs by directrecruitment through the TNPSC in the year 1998, while therespondents 3 to 23 have joined in the service as Junior DraughtingOfficer between 1978 and 1983 and they were subsequently promoted asJEs on various dates. As per Rule 10, a JE, who has put in a serviceof not less than 10 years in the categories of JE or Draughtsman areeligible for appointment as ADE and the respondents 3 to 23 havefulfilled the requirements of the above said provision andaccordingly, they were selected and included in the list of JEs fitfor appointment as ADE approved by the Government. It is furtherstated by the respondents 1 and 2 that Section Offices in Highways https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Department are manned either by B.E. Degree holders or diplomaholders. The degree holders are called as AEs and diploma holders arecalled as JEs. As per Rule 18, 75 % of the vacancies to befilled up by AEs (degree holders) and 25 % of the vacancies shall befilled up by JEs (diploma holders) and in the Section Office both theAEs and JEs are interchangeable. As per Rule 9(a), the same ratio of3 : 1 between AEs and JEs is being followed while filling up thevacancies in the post of ADE. As per the statutory rules, only theeligible candidates in both the categories of AEs/JEs are beingconsidered for promotion and appointment as ADE by following theratio of 3 : 1. Hence the appointment of the respondents 3 to 23 tothe post of ADE is valid and legal and they have been appointed onlyin the quota reserved for diploma holders and none of them have beenappointed in the quota earmarked for degree holders.5.3. It is further stated that the contention of the petitionersthat the approved panel should be published in the Tamil NaduGovernment Gazettee is not correct and as per the provisionscontained under Rule 4(a) as amended in G.O.Ms.No.284, Personnel andAdministrative Reforms Department, dated 01.12.1997, it is enough ifthe approved panels are displayed in the notice board of theapproving authority. 5.4. The respondents 1 and 2 have also emphatically denied theallegations of acting and favouring the diploma holders as totallybaseless.5.5. The respondents 3, 4, 5 and 13 and the respondents 11, 12,19 and 23 to 28 and the respondents 6 and 16 in W.P.No.8870 of 2008have filed separate counters refuting the averments and contentionsof the petitioners stating that they are eligible and qualified andthey have been promoted as ADE as per the statutory rules. It isstated that the petitioners having not challenged the order ofpromotion of the respondents 3 to 23 made in G.O.Ms.No.147 HighwaysDepartment, dated 30.05.2007 and the 3 : 1 ratio and prescribedqualification for the promotion as per the Engineering Service Rules,these writ petitions are not maintainable. The respondents 3 to 23have rendered more than 20 years of combined service as Draughtsman,Overseer and JEs and as such they are eligible for promotion as ADE.It is further stated that the petitioners wrongly interpreted theservice rules and thereby erred in alleging that an employee, whorendered service for 10 years as JE alone should be promoted as ADEwithout taking note of the fact that as per Rule 10(b)(3)(a) and (b)service as Overseer, Junior Engineer or Draughtsman for a period ofnot less than 18 years is the eligibility for the post of ADE. 5.6. In respect of the other averments and contentions,the above said respondents taken a similar stand as that of therespondents 1 and 2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.1. Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel for thepetitioners while assailing the promotion of the respondents 3 to 23and the proposed promotion of the respondents 24 to 28 as ADE putforward the following contentions :(1)The respondents 3 to 28 are not qualified as they are nothaving 10 years experience as JE and as such they are noteligible for promotion as ADE ;(2)From the reading of the Rule 9(a), it is clear that thereservation of quota of 3 : 1 ratio between AEs and JEs isapplicable only in the event of qualified and suitablecandidates are available and if qualified and suitablecandidates are not available in either of the categories ofAEs and JEs, it goes to the other, i.e., of AEs are notavailable, three posts can be filled up from among theeligible JEs and vice-versa. The said rule is not absolutein its terms, but it is conditional upon qualified andsuitable candidates are being available.(3)Rule 10 makes it very clear that the persons who do notpossess the qualification prescribed therein are noteligible for appointment to the category under the methodsof recruitment stated therein.(4)If the promotions are made to the post of ADE byappointing unqualified persons, rule 9(b) would becomeredundant. Rule 9(a) if harmoniously read with Rule 10(b)(2)(a) and (b) would show that the fourth vacancy out ofevery four vacancies in the category of ADE shall be filledeither by a JE or by a permanent Draughtsman, who has beenappointed as JE but working in the drawing office foradministrative reasons and who has rendered service as JEor as draughtsman after becoming JE. The draughtsmanreferred to shall be the draughtsman who after appointmentas JE continues to work as draughtsman for administrativereasons and he should have rendered ten years either asJunior Engineer or Draughtsman after becoming JuniorEngineer.(5)The Government can, under Rules 9(b) and 10(b)(3)(a) and(b) of the rules notwithstanding anything contained inthese rules, i.e., de hors, the said 3 : 1 ratio, appointJEs with lower subordinate diploma with total service of 18years as Junior Engineer, Overseer or Draughtsman withproven efficiency. This rule is not applicable to thepresent case as the said respondents have not beenappointed as ADE under this rule as the first respondentreplied to the query put under the Right to InformationAct, 2005 that the respondents 3 to 23 have not been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appointed under Rule 10(b)(2)(a) and (b) of the rules.(6)The petitioners who are the degree holders and working asAEs after completing 9 years of service are stagnating,whereas the respondents 3 to 23, who are not having 10years of service as JEs, are promoted/included in the panelfor promotion as ADEs ;(7)The respondent No.23, who has been promoted as JE on18.04.1999 is due for promotion on 18.04.2009, i.e., aftercompleting 10 years of service as JE, whereas, he waspromoted as ADE on 30.05.2007 itself. Likewise, oneP.Subramanian (respondent No.24), who was promoted asJunior Engineer on 11.09.2004 will be finishing 10 years ofservice as JE only on 11.09.2014, but his name is underconsideration for promotion as ADE in the year 2009 itself.On the other hand, the petitioners, who are the degree-holders and serving as AEs since 1998, 1999 and 2000 andwho are eligible for promotion as ADE after completing fiveyears of service are not included in the list for promotionas ADE. Therefore, the question is whether 10 years ofservice as JE is sufficient or not or ten years of serviceas JE includes draughtsman also and if such contention isaccepted, then Rule 9(b) of the rules becomes redundant.6.2. The learned senior counsel placed reliance on the decisionof a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1542 of 1992 dated10.10.2003. 7.1. Mr.N.Subramaniyan, learned counsel for the petitionerswhile adopting the arguments of Mr.Vijay Narayan, would furthersubmit that as per Rule 10(b)(4) a Junior Engineer, even if heacquires B.E. Degree, he will not eligible for appointment asAssistant Divisional Engineer before completion of five years and assuch care was taken by the framers of the rules to see that the AEsalready in service shall not be overlooked by subsequently appointedJEs. It is further submitted that there are inequalities between thepetitioners and the respondents 3 to 23. The respondents 3 to 23 andimpleaded respondents 24 to 28, who are not having requisitequalification as contemplated under Rules 9(b) and 10(b)(3)(a) and(b) and without serving ten years as JEs, have overtaken thepetitioners, who are having more than nine years of service withhigher qualification, which is nothing but meriting the demerits anddemeriting the merits amounting to discrimination. 7.2. Mr.N.Subramaniyan, learned counsel would further submitthat the respondents 3 to 28, being possessed the qualification ofonly DCE, a diploma awarded by the Directorate of TechnicalEducation, Madras, which was formerly known as L.C.E., Diploma ofTechnological Board of Madras and such qualification is not in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conformity with rule 10. It is further contended that the saidrespondents have been appointed only as per Rule 9(a) and 10(b)(2)(a)and (b) and not under rule 10(b)(3)(a) and (b), and there is nospecific pleading either in the counter of the respondents 1 and 2 orin the counter of the respondents 3 to 23 and as such they are noteligible and qualified for appointment to the post of ADE.8. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner inW.P.No.27694 of 2008 contended that only AEs (degree holders), areentitled for promotion for the post of ADE and in respect of JEs,their earlier service cannot be taken into account. It is submittedthat service as JEs for a period of 10 years alone can be taken intoaccount and even putting service as Draughtsman cannot be countedunless they have served as JE for 10 years. The learned counselfurther contended that even putting 18 years service as Overseer orDraughting Officer will not enable them to get promotion unless theyshould be considered to be efficient and competent for suchappointment by the Government. The learned counsel would placereliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in N.Suresh NathanVs. Union of India reported in CDJ 1991 SC 033.9.1. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel for therespondents 3 to 6 in W.P.No.10183 of 2008 and the respondents 24 to28 in W.P.No.8870 of 2008 would contend that it is the admitted factthat there are two streams, AEs and JEs, and there is a ratio betweenthese two different streams for the purpose of promotion to the postof ADE, namely, 3:1. It is submitted by the learned senior counselthat for every four vacancies of ADE arising, three must be from AEstream and one must be from JE stream and therefore, there are twolists and three will come from AE list and one will come from JE listand there is no question of inter se seniority or senior or juniorposition and one cannot enter into others line and the rules andprovisions are clear in this regard. Even if there is no qualifiedcandidates in one stream, the other cannot enter into that stream,which fact is very much clear from the position of the Rules. Thelearned senior counsel further submitted that out 48 vacancies, 36must go to AEs and 12 must go to JEs and each of them cannot claimother stream's posts and their respective quota has been fixed. Thelearned senior counsel relied 9(a) and (b) and submitted that if a JEis having totally eighteen years of service, he is eligible forpromotion as ADE. The learned senior counsel vehemently contendedthat as per Rule 9(b) total service of not less than eighteen yearsrendered by a candidate as JE, Overseer or Draughting Officer willcount and 10 years as JE is not required. Therefore, it is submittedthat if a Draughtsman completed 17 years and 11 months 30 daysservice as Draughtsman and served one day as JE, he is eligible forthe promotion as ADE, i.e., on the date of promotion he should beholding the post of JE. It is contended that all the respondentsherein have put up more than 18 years of service and they aredefinitely eligible for promotion as they have fulfilled the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ requirements. The learned senior counsel would further submit thatsince the AEs are having higher qualification, they are required tocomplete only 5 years of service, whereas, the JEs are required tocomplete 10 years of service.9.2. The learned senior counsel contended that rule 9(a) and (b)of the rules is not peculiar and such rule is not prevailing in thehighways department alone and there are similar rules available inChennai Corporation Engineering Service Rules, Tamil Nadu EngineeringService Rules (PWD) etc.. It is contended by the learned seniorcounsel for the respondents that a Division Bench of this Court inGomathinayagam, T.U. V. D.Dayal & 2 others reported in 1992 Writ LawReporter 569 considering the similar rules under the MadrasCorporation Engineering Service Rules, 1969, held that total servicehas to be taken into consideration including the service rendered inthe feeder category. It is submitted that the said decision was alsoconfirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.2567 of 1994 byorder dated 29.02.1996. The learned senior counsel by placingreliance on the above said decisions would contend that it is enoughfor the respondents 3 to 23 to have total period of service of 18years including the service in the lower category to become eligiblefor promotion for the post of ADE. 9.3. The learned senior counsel would also place reliance on yetanother decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.225and 651 of 2005 dated 28.09.2007 dealing with the similar rulestaking similar view that total period of service is to be taken intoconsideration including the service rendered under the lower category.9.4. It is further contended by the learned senior counsel thatthe respondents 3 to 28 are possessing requisite educationalqualification and placed reliance on the letter dated 20.07.2009written by the Additional Director of Polytechnics to the AdditionalSecretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department,Secretariat, Chennai, certifying that LCE/LME awarded by theDirectorate of Technical Education, Tamil Nadu, is equivalent toDCE/DME respectively awarded by the State Board of TechnicalEducation and Training, Tamil Nadu.10. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the respondents 3, 4,5 & 13 in W.P.No.8870 of 2008 while adopting the arguments of thelearned senior counsel for the respondents and also highlighting therules submitted that only total period of service is to be taken intoconsideration including the service rendered in the lower categoryand the service as JE alone is not required as per the rules.11. Mr.G.Ethirajulu, learned counsel for the respondents 11, 12and 19 in W.P.No.8870 of 2009 and the third respondent inW.P.No.10183 of 2009, while adopting the arguments ofMr.R.Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel further submitted that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rules 9(a) and (b) and 10(b)(3)(a) and (b) have been framed in orderto give chance to the lower category people for promotion to thehigher category, otherwise, diploma holders cannot compete with thedegree holders. The learned counsel would further submit that therule is very clear in respect of the fixation of ratio of 3 : 1between the degree holders and diploma holders and also fixing theeligibility of experience instead of five years as 10 years and 18years for diploma holders and that itself shows that the rule is veryclear and there is no impediment for promotion of such diplomaholders. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners havenot challenged the Rule 9 and 10 and as such the points raised bythem cannot be considered.12.1. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Additional Advocate General, byplacing reliance on the provisions, submitted that the degree inEngineering is a higher qualification. The petitioners who are thedegree holders in Engineering are entitled to be appointed directlyas AEs and they need to put 5 years of service for getting promotionas ADE. As far as JEs are concerned, a diploma in Engineering issufficient to get appointment as JE and they need to put more yearsof service to become eligible for promotion as ADE and the same isapplicable to Overseer, Draughtsman and Draughting Officers as perthe rules.12.2. The learned Additional Advocate General would furthercontend by placing reliance on the counter filed by the respondents 1and 2 that JEs, who have been given promotion as ADEs, had joined inthe service between 1979-1983 and the junior most officer, who wasgiven promotion as ADE, had joined in the service on 29.08.1983 andfor getting promotion each of them have put up more than 25 years ofservice, whereas, the petitioners have joined in the service between1997 and 1998 and from such position, it is clear that all thepromotees have put up more than 25 years of service and therefore,there is no doubt that they have completed 18 years of total service,which is the crucial qualification and such factual position cannotbe disputed.12.3. It is further contended that Rule 9 (b) reads "a JuniorEngineer .... who has rendered a total service of not less thaneighteen years on duty as Junior Engineer, Overseer or DraughtingOfficer and has proved himself to be efficient may ...." which meanscollectively one must have completed 18 years of service as it doesnot specifically indicates how much service one has to put in eachcategory and that is why the term "total service" is used. It isfurther contended that the petitioners strangely interpreted therules instead of challenging the rules 9 and 10 and rule 9 is only anenabling provision and the term used in Rule 9(b) and 10 (c)(2)(a)and (b) must be collectively read which will fall in line and itcannot be isolated and as such the same is not redundant as contendedby the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12.4. It is contended by the learned Additional Advocate Generalthat such rules are prevailing in other departments, like, PublicWorks Department and Chennai Corporation etc. and it is common inservice jurisprudence.12.5. The learned Additional Advocate General would furthercontend that the petitioners cannot claim the quota reserved for JEsand vice-versa as out of every four vacancies of ADEs, three postsare reserved for AEs and one post is reserved for JEs and one cannotembark into quota earmarked for the other.12.6. The learned Additional Advocate General further contendedthat the petitioners are not coming within the zone of considerationand therefore, they are not entitled to challenge the promotion ofJEs as ADEs.12.7. Lastly it is submitted by the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral that the Technological Diploma Board, Madras has now becomeDirectorate of Technical Education and produced a letter dated06.07.2009 and contended that the respondents 3 to 23 are possessingnecessary educational qualification as R-3 to R-5 and R-9 to R-11 arepossessing DCE/BE, R-7, R-8 and R-12 are possessing B.E. and otherspossessing DCE. It is submitted that the letter dated 20.07.2009written by Additional Director (Polytechnics), Directorate ofTechnical Education, Chennai, to the Additional Secretary to theGovernment, Highways and Minor Ports (HK.1) Department, Secretariat,Chennai, reveals that L.C.E./L.M.E. (Licenciate CivilEngineering/Licenciate Mechanical Engineering) awarded by theDirectorate of Technical Education, Tamil Nadu, is equivalent toDiploma in Civil Engineering/Diploma in Mechanical Engineeringrespectively awarded by the State Board of Technical Education andTraining, Tamil Nadu and as such, the respondents 3 to 28 arepossessing the prescribed educational qualification as per the rulesapart from experience eligibility for the promotion to the post ofADE. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral that the respondents 3 to 23 have been rightly promoted andappointed as ADE as they are coming well within the prescribedqualification and eligibility under the rules.13. I have given my careful consideration to the rivalcontentions put forward by either side and perused the entirematerials available on record.14. The main questions arising for consideration are; (i) whether the reservation of the quota of 3:1 ratio prescribedunder Rule 9(a) between AEs (degree-holders) and JEs (diploma-holders) would be applicable only in the event of qualified and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ suitable candidates are available in the respective categories and inthe event of non-availability of such candidates in either of thecategories, whether one can embark into the quota reserved for theother ;(ii) Whether the total service of not less than 18 years, 10years and 18 years contemplated under Rule 9(b), 10(b)(2)(b) and 10(b)(3)(b) respectively would mean only rendering service as JE or itwould include the service as Draughtsman and Overseer ;(iii) Whether the promotion of respondents 3 to 23 and proposedpromotion of respondents 24 to 28 are in accordance with theEngineering Service Rules ?15. Before proceeding to consider the above said questions, itis relevant to refer to the Engineering Service Rules in respect ofmethod and manner of promotion to ADE.16.1. Rule 3 of the Engineering Service Rules which provides forappointment to various categories of staff is as follows :3. Appointment – (a) Appointment to the severalcategories shall be made as follows :1. ....2. ....3. ....4.AssistantDivisionalEngineers --(Direct recruitment; or) **** (omitted vide G.O.Ms.No.68 Highways (HK.1)Department, dated 01.04.2002) ;Recruitment by transfer from Junior Engineersin the Tamil Nadu Highways EngineeringSubordinate Service or from AssistantEngineers of the Public Works Department inthe Tamil Nadu Engineering Service or fromJunior Engineers of the Public WorksDepartment in the Tamil Nadu EngineeringSubordinate Service working in the HighwaysDepartment.16.2. Rules 9 and 10 deal with the manner of appointment of ADEsand the required qualification and eligibility. The said rules readas hereunder :9. Appointment of Assistant Divisional Engineer : (earlier provision for direct recruitment was omittedvide G.O.Ms.No.68 Highways (HK.1) Department, dated01.04.2002 and as such (b) became (a)) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (a) So far as qualified and suitable candidates areavailable, out of every four vacancies successivelyarising otherwise than substantively among AssistantDivisional Engineers, the first three shall be filled orreserved to be filled by promotion from among permanentAssistant Engineers in category 5, possessing the B.E.,degree (Highways, Civil or Mechanical) of any Universityor Institution recognised by the University GrantsCommission for the purpose of its grant or the diploma inEngineering (Highways, Civil or Mechanical) of the Collegeof Engineering, Guindy, or of any University orInstitution recognised by the University Grants Commissionfor the purpose of its grant and the fourth vacancy shallbe filled or reserved to be filled by recruitment bytransfer from among permanent Junior Engineers of theTamil Nadu Highways Engineering Subordinate Service orpermanent Draughtsmen who have been appointed as JuniorEngineer but working in the Drawing Office foradministrative reasons possessing the Upper Subordinate orL.C.E. Diploma of the College of Engineering, Guindy orthe L.C.E. Diploma of the Technological Diploma Board,Madras, or a diploma in Engineering of any University orInstitution recognised by the University Grants Commissionfor the purpose of its grant.(b) A Junior Engineer holding the Lower Subordinatediploma of the College of Engineering, Guindy, or adiploma in Engineering of any University or Institutionrecognised by the University Grants Commission for thepurpose of its grant who has rendered a total service ofnot less than eighteen years on duty as Junior Engineer,Overseer or Draughting Officer and has proved himself tobe efficient may, notwithstanding anything contained inthese rules be appointed as Assistant Divisional Engineersif the State Government consider that he is competent forsuch appointment." (emphasis supplied by this Court)10. Qualification for Assistant Divisional Engineersand Assistant Engineers : No person shall be eligible forappointment to the category specified in column (1) of thetable below, by the method specified in column (2) unless hepossesses the qualifications specified in the correspondingentries in column (3) thereof : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Category(1)Method of recruitment(2)Qualifications(3)AssistantDivisionalEngineer(earlier provisionfor directrecruitment wasomitted vide G.O.Ms.No.68 Highways (HK.1)Department, dated01.04.2002 and assuch (b) became (a))(a) Promotion(b) Recruitment bytransfer from amongJunior Engineers inthe Tamil NaduHighways EngineeringSubordinate Serviceor from JuniorEngineers of thePublic WorksDepartment in theTamil NaduEngineeringSubordinate Service.(1) Must possess a degree in Highways, Civilor Mechanical Engineering or a pass inSections – A and B of the A.M.I.E. (India)Examinations (re-named as InstitutionExamination) ; and(2) Must have put in service for a period ofnot less than five years as AssistantEngineer.1(a) Must possess a Diploma in Highways Civilor Mechanical Engineering of the College ofEngineering Guindy ; and(b) Service as Junior Engineer for a period ofnot less than five years ; or2(a) Must possess Upper Subordinate or L.C.E.Diploma of the College of Engineering,Guindy or the L.C.E., L.M.E. Or L.A.E.,Diploma of the Technological Diploma Board,Madras or any diploma in Engineering ; and(b) Service as Junior Engineer or Draughtsmanfor a period of not less than ten years ; or3(a) Must possess Lower Subordinate Diploma ofthe College of Engineering, Guindy, or anyDiploma in Engineering ; and(b) Service as Overseer, Junior Engineer orDraughtsman for a period of not less thaneighteen years ;Provided that L.M.E., and L.A.E., diplomaholders shall, on appointment as AssistantDivisional Engineers be, as far as possible,posted in the vacancies that arises in theworkshops under the control of the HighwaysDepartment.EXPLANATIONFor the purpose of this rule, the servicerendered as District Board Overseer ortemporary Overseer or Assistant Engineer orJunior Engineers in any Public WorksDepartment Roads Circle shall be treated asservice ; or4. Must possess a degree in Engineering or itsequivalent after appointment and on completionof either ten years of total service or threeyears of service from the date of taking hisdegree whichever is earlier, subject to thecondition that no person who has a totalservice of less than five years shall beeligible for appointment as AssistantDivisional Engineer. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17.3. Rule 18 (a) reads hereunder :18. Reservation of vacancy in the post of AssistantEngineer and assignment of rank for certain AssistantEngineers ;- (a) Twenty five percent of the total number ofvacancies both in the category of Assistant Engineers inthe Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service and in thecategory of Junior Engineers in the Tamil Nadu HighwaysEngineering Subordinate Service estimated every year shallbe reserved to be filled by the candidates possessing theL.C.E. diploma or its equivalent. The other seventy fivepercent of the vacancies shall be reserved to be filled bythe candidates possessing a degree in Engineering or itsequivalent for appointment as Assistant Engineers in theTamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service;"17.4. A reading of the above said rules makes it clear that thepromotion to the post of ADE is to be made from two categories, viz.,AEs (degree-holders) and JEs (diploma-holders). Rule 9(a) contemplates reservation of quota in respect of AEs(degree-holders) and JEs (diploma-holders) at the ratio of 3 : 1,i.e., out of every four vacancies successively arising, the firstthree shall be filled or reserved to be filled from AEs and thefourth vacancy shall be filled or reserved to be filled from JEs.18. Now let me consider the first question which is thesheet-anchor of the contentions of the learned senior counsel for thepetitioners relating to the interpretation of rule 9(a) prescribingreservation of quota for promotion to the post of ADE between AEs andJEs at 3 : 1 ratio as to whether it is applicable only in the eventof availability of qualified and suitable candidates and whether inthe event of non-availability of such qualified and suitablecandidates in a particular category, whether the vacancy reserved forthe said category can be filled up by promoting the candidates fromthe other category ? 19. To answer this question, we have to, at the outset, examinethe scope and ambit of rule 9(a) of the Engineering Service Rules. 20. Rule 9(a) has to be read conjointly with the other rules tounderstand its purport and meaning and it cannot be read inisolation. Merely because Rule 9(a) begins with the phrase "so faras qualified and suitable candidates are available", it cannot bemisunderstood to give a go-by to 3 : 1 ratio contemplated under thesaid rule between AEs (degree-holders) and JEs (diploma-holders).The phrase used "so far as the qualified and suitable candidates areavailable" should be taken into consideration along with Rules 9(b)and 10 prescribing qualification and experience as eligibilitycriteria for the promotion to the post of ADE. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

21. It is needless to say that only qualified and suitablepersons are entitled for the promotion either from AEs or JEs. Thestatute fixes the quota for the respective two feeder categories,namely, AEs and JEs for the promotion to the post of ADE on the basisof the cumulative consideration of qualification and experience. Thequestion of one encroaching and embarking into the quota of the otherdoes not arise in view of the clear and unambiguous rules, as statedabove.22. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court in Shailendra Dania V. S.P.Dubey reported in2007 (5) SCC 535. The Hon'ble Apex Court in that decision whiledealing with a similar question in respect of fixing eligibility,experience and quota for the degree holders and diploma holders forpromotion to the higher cadre held as hereunder :"43. Taking into consideration the entire scheme of therelevant Rules, it is obvious that the diploma-holders wouldnot be eligible for promotion to the post of AssistantEngineer in their quota unless they have eight years'service, whereas the graduate Engineers would be required tohave three years' service experience apart from theirdegree. If the effect and intent of the Rules were such totreat the diploma as equivalent to a degree for the purposeof promotion to the higher post, then induction to the cadreof Junior Engineers from two different channels would berequired to be considered similar, without subjecting thediploma-holders to any further requirement of having afurther qualification of two years' service. At the time ofinduction into the service to the post of Junior Engineers,degree in Engineering is a sufficient qualification withoutthere being any prior experience, whereas diploma-holdersshould have two years' experience apart from their diplomafor their induction in the service. As per the servicerules, on the post of Assistant Engineer, 50% of totalvacancies would be filled up by direct recruitment, whereasfor the promotion specific quota is prescribed for agraduate Junior Engineer and a diploma-holder JuniorEngineer. When the quota is prescribed under the Rules, thepromotion of graduate Junior Engineers to the higher post isrestricted to 25% quota fixed. So far as the diploma-holders are concerned, their promotion to the higher post isconfined to 25%. As an eligibility criterion, a degree isfurther qualified by three years' service for the JuniorEngineers, whereas eight years' service is required for thediploma-holders. Degree with three years' serviceexperience and diploma with eight years' service experienceitself indicates qualitative difference in the servicerendered as degree-holder Junior Engineer and diploma-holderJunior Engineer. .... https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

44. After having an overall consideration of therelevant Rules, we are of the view that the serviceexperience required for promotion from the post of JuniorEngineer to the post of Assistant Engineer by a degree-holder in the limited quota of degree-holder Junior Engineercannot be equated with the service rendered as a diploma-holder nor can be substituted for service rendered as adegree-holder. When the claim is made from a fixed quota,the condition necessary for becoming eligible for promotionhas to be complied with. The 25% specific quota is fixedfor degree-holder Junior Engineers with the experience ofthree years. Thus, on a plain reading, the experience sorequired would be as a degree-holder Junior Engineer. 25%quota for promotion under the rule is assigned to degree-holder Junior Engineers with three years' experience,whereas for diploma-holder Junior Engineers eight years'experience is the requirement in their 25% quota.Educational qualification along with number of years ofservice was recognised as conferring eligibility forpromotion in the respective quota fixed for graduates anddiploma-holders. There is watertight compartment forgraduate Junior Engineers and diploma-holder JuniorEngineers. They are entitled for promotion in theirrespective quotas. Neither a diploma-holder Junior Engineercould claim promotion in the quota of degree-holders becausehe has completed three years of service nor can a degree-holder Junior Engineer make any claim for promotion quotafixed for diploma-holder Junior Engineers. Fixation ofdifferent quota for promotion from different channels ofdegree-holders and diploma-holders itself indicates thatservice required for promotion is an essential eligibilitycriterion along with degree or diploma, which isservice rendered as a degree-holder in the present case." 23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Direct Recruit Class IIEngineering Officers' Association V. State of Maharashtra reported in1990 (2) SCC 715 held that,"When appointments are made from more than onesource, it is permissible to fix the ratio forrecruitment from the different sources, and if rules areframed in this regard they must ordinarily be followedstrictly."The principles laid down in the decisions cited supra are squarelyapplicable to the question involved in the instant case relating tothe interpretation of the rules stipulating the reservation andfixation of quota in respect of AEs (degree-holders) and JEs(diploma-holders) for promotion to the post of ADE. Applying thesame, it is crystal clear that neither a degree-holder (AE) could https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ claim promotion in the quota of diploma-holder (JE) nor can adiploma-holder (JE) make any claim for promotion in the quota fixedfor degree-holder (AE). It is pertinent to note that the petitionershave not challenged the validity of the rules 9(a) and (b) and 10 andas such it goes without saying that the said rules have to be read asit is. In my considered opinion, the said rules are clear andunambiguous and therefore, only a literal rule of interpretationshould be applied. In view of the same, the quota fixed for therespective categories as per rule 9(a) is to be followedscrupulously. 24. It is relevant to note that the AEs have higherqualification as they are degree holders and they are required tocomplete five years of service, whereas, JEs, who are only diplomaholders and they are required to complete 10 years of service as perRule 10(b)(1)(b) and 10(b)(2)(b) respectively. It is pertinent tonote that as per the rule 9(b) JEs (diploma-holders) required tocomplete the total service of not less than 18 years as JE, Overseeror Draughting Officer. It is seen that JEs, being diploma-holders,are required to complete more number of years of service as Overseer,Junior Engineer or Draughtsman as they are holding lesserqualification.25. The quota of 3:1 ratio prescribed under rule 9(a) betweenAEs (degree-holders) and JEs (diploma-holders) is proportionate totheir qualification and experience. It is pertinent to note thateven as per Rule 18 a similar quota is fixed in respect of the postof AEs stipulating 75% of the vacancies arising in the SectionOffices shall be reserved to be filled by the degree holders and 25%of vacancies shall be filled by the diploma holders. In view of suchclarity in the said rules, neither the AEs (degree holders) embarkinto the quota of JEs (diploma holders) nor JEs (diploma holders)embark into the quota reserved for AEs (degree holders). As held bythe Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra, there is a watertight compartment for AEs (degree holders) and JEs (diploma holders)as per the above said rules and they are entitled for promotion onlyon the basis of their respective quotas. Even in the event of non-availability of qualified and suitable candidates in either of thecategories, one cannot embark into the quota of the other as the saidrule 9(a) does not contemplate such situation. Such being theposition, it is not possible for the Court to add or delete words instatutory rules. 26. At the risk of repetition, it is to be re-iterated that theabove said rules are very clear and unambiguous and followed for along period. Even assuming if two views are possible afterinterpreting the rule, the interpretation which favours the practicewhich was being followed for a long period should ordinarily bepreferred. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

27. It is well-settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in ShailendraDania case (cited supra) that,"36. .... Thus, we are required to decide the matteron the basis of the entire scheme of the Rules, the factsand circumstances at the relevant time and the Rulescalled in question before us, independently giving meaningto the words, the principle involved and the pastpractice, if any, which is in consonance with theinterpretation given by us to the Rule. If we find thattwo views are possible after interpreting the Rule, thenthe Rule would be interpreted keeping with the practicefollowed in the Department for a long time and thus thepractice practically acquired status of rule in theDepartment."28. In yet another latest decision in Nair Service Society V.Dr.T.Beermasthan reported in 2009 (5) SCC 545 the Hon'ble Apex Courtheld that,"32. .... If two interpretations of the Rules arepossible, the interpretation which favours the practicewhich was being followed for a long period shouldordinarily be preferred unless it is clearly in violationof the Rules." It is seen that Rule 9(a) prescribing quota for AEs and JEs iscontinuously followed for a long time and as such there is noquestion of any deviation from following such reservation quotasystem.29. Let me now consider the next limb of the contention of thelearned senior counsel for the petitioners to the effect that therespondents 3 to 28 are not qualified and eligible for promotion tothe post of ADE as they are not having required service experienceand the educational qualification.30. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners took enormouspain to contend that as per the rules, the respondents 3 to 28 haveto put 10 years of service as JEs to become eligible for promotion tothe post of ADE and their service as Draughtsman cannot be included.The learned senior counsel would further submit that Rule 9(a)provides that "the fourth vacancy shall be filled or reserved to befilled by recruitment by transfer from among permanent JEs of theTamil Nadu Highways Engineering Subordinate Service or permanentDraughtsmen, who have been appointed as JEs but working in theDrawing Office for administrative reasons" which means a Draughtsmanafter appointment of permanent JE, who is working as Draughtsman inthe Drawing Office for administrative reasons and completed ten yearsof service as JE, alone eligible for appointment as ADE and total https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ experience cannot be taken into consideration. Similar contentionwas re-iterated by Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner and further emphasized that they should be consideredto be efficient and competent for such promotion. 31. I am of the considered view that Rule 9(a) and (b) and Rule10(b)(2)(a) & (b) and 10(b)(3)(a) and (b) shall be read together andcannot be isolated as Rule 9(a) and (b) are the enabling provisions.I am unable to countenance the contention of the learned seniorcounsel for the petitioners that as per rule 9(a), a Draughtsmanafter appointment of permanent JE alone, who is working asDraughtsman in the drawing office for administrative reasons andcompleted 10 years service as JE, eligible for appointment as ADE andtotal experience cannot be taken into consideration on the simplereason that the said provision rule 9(a) does not contemplate suchsituation of requiring 10 years of service as JE alone. 32. At the risk of repetition, it is to be re-iterated that thepromotion to the post of ADE is only from two feeder categories,viz., AEs (degree-holders) and JEs (diploma-holders). Section 9(a)provides for reservation of quota of 3 : 1 ratio between AEs and JEs.Therefore, the eligibility for promotion to the post of ADE is at thetime of promotion, they should work as AE or JE and as such, it isabundantly clear that the Draughtsman is entitled for promotion onlyafter becoming JE. It is relevant to note that Rule 9(a) clearlyprovides that the fourth vacancy shall be filled or reserved forrecruitment by transfer from permanent JEs or permanent Draughtsman,who have been appointed as JEs, working in the drawing office foradministrative reasons, that means, as per provision under Rule 9(a),the eligibility for promotion to the post of ADE made abundantlyclear that one should work, at the time of promotion, as JEirrespective of the fact that a Draughtsman, who have been appointedas JE but working in the drawing office for administrative reasons.It is pertinent to note that only the provisions under Rules 9(b) and10(b)(2)(a) and (b) and 10(b)(3)(a) and (b) contemplates the requiredservice experience and Rule 9(a) is nothing to do with fixing ofservice experience. The phraseology used in rule 9(b) reads "a totalservice of not less than eighteen years on duty as Junior Engineer,Overseer or Draughting Officer and has proved himself to beefficient" ; in rule 10(b)(2)(b) reads "Service as Junior Engineer orDraughtsman for a period of not less than ten years ; and in rule 10(b)(3)(b) reads "Service as Overseer, Junior Engineer or Draughtsmanfor a period of not less than eighteen years". The reading of thesaid provisions makes it crystal clear that for diploma holders theirtotal service including the service as Overseer, Draughtsman and JEshould be taken together and their service under the lower categoriesas Overseer and Draughtsman cannot be excluded and they are notrequired to put a service of 10 years and 18 years as JE alone.Therefore, I am of the considered view that there is much force inthe contentions put forward by Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned senior https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ counsel for the respondents that if a Draughtsman completed more than17 years of service as Draughtsman and served one day as JE, he iseligible for promotion as ADE and the only requirement foreligibility to the promotion is that he should hold the post of JE onthe date of promotion.33. The above said rules are not peculiar to the highwaysdepartment alone and such rules are common in service jurisprudencefor promotion and similar rules are prevailing in other departmentsalso contemplating total period of service including the servicerendered in the lower category.34. There is a similar provision under Rule 4 in the MadrasCorporation Engineering Service Rules, 1969 in respect of the diplomaholders and a Division Bench of this Court dealt with such rule inGomathinayagam V. D.Dayal & Others reported in 1992 Writ Law Reporter569 and held as hereunder:"10. .... A plain reading of the Rule would only meanthat the Draftsmen, etc., promoted to the feeder categoryof Junior Engineers, etc., are eligible for promotion tothe post of Assistant Executive Engineer if they have putin a total service of not less than 10 years in one or morecategories. In the abovesaid context, the term "one ormore categories" cannot be restricted only to the feedercategory, viz., Junior Engineers, Head Surveyor or HeadDraftsmen, but it would include even the lower category ofDraftsmen, Overseers and Surveyors because the term theyused in the expression "only if they have put in a totalservice" would grammatically refer to Draftsmen, Overseersand Surveyors who are promoted as Junior Engineers, HeadSurveyors or Head Draftsmen." The said decision was upheld by the Hon'ble Court in S.L.P. (Civil)No.2567 of 1994 dated 20.02.1996.35. Yet another Division Bench of this Court in V.Kuppan V.P.Murali in W.A.Nos.255 and 651 of 2005 by judgment dated 28.09.2007took a similar view in respect of the interpretation of Rule 4 of theMadras Corporation Engineering Service Rules and held as hereunder :"From the perusal of the above said rule it is amplyclear that for the Diploma Holders in ElectricalEngineering of the State Board of Technical Education andTraining or any other qualifications considered equivalentthereto, a minimum 15 years of service is required and forthe Degree Holders in Electrical Engineering, not less thanfive years of experience as Assistant Engineer in theCorporation Engineering Subordinate Service is required.Nowhere in the said rule it is stipulated that 15 years of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ service is required for the Diploma Holders after they weredesignated as Junior Engineers. When the rule is veryclear and the Corporation having acted upon on the basis ofthe rule as could be seen from the counter affidavit filedby the Corporation placing the respondents 3 to 5 who areappellants in W.A.No.255 of 2005 in the panel for promotionfor the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer (Electrical)by seniority from the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical),no exception could be taken by the petitioners, who areDegree Holders." 36. There are similar provisions in the service rules of PublicWorks Department and Housing and Urban Development Department.37. It is seen that the respondents 1 and 2 in their counterstated about the respective dates of appointments of the respondents3 to 28 as Junior Draughting Officer, JE and promotion andappointment as ADE as hereunder :Sl.No.NameDate ofappointment asJuniorDraughtingOfficerDate ofappointment asJuniorEngineersDate ofappointment asAssistantDivisionalEngineer1T.Natanasabapathy07.02.7815.02.99 AN14.06.07 AN2T.Hari Babu13.02.7805.03.99 FN18.06.07 FN3V.Nagarajan14.02.7817.05.99 AN22.06.07 FN4A.Azhagapan20.09.8018.02.04 AN12.01.08 FN5M.Rajendran16.06.8101.03.04 FN24.01.08 FN6S.Gnanamuthu07.07.8118.02.04 FN11.01.08 FN7M.Balasubramanian15.02.7812.03.99 FN06.02.08 FN8V.Shanmugam17.02.7817.03.99 FN 01.02.089K.Rathinakumar22.04.7807.04.99 FN11.10.08 AN10G.Paneerselvam01.03.7804.03.99 FN20.01.08 FN11R.Ramasamy20.02.7817.03.9912.01.08 AN12S.Gandhi05.03.8022.12.99 FN11.01.0813R.Pachimuthu06.03.8018.11.99 FN18.01.08 AN14C.Gopalan07.01.8101.12.99 FN01.02.08 FN15M.Govindasamy11.08.8320.11.99 FN14.01.08 FN16T.Srinivasan19.09.8029.11.99 FN11.01.08 FN17C.Venkatachalam02.03.7923.11.99 FN18.01.08 AN18D.Chandrasekaran02.02.7822.12.99 FN31.01.08 AN19K.Chikkandar Meeran Moheedin20.09.8019.11.99 FN06.02.08 FN20V.Rajagopal29.08.8320.10.99 FN11.01.08 AN21K.Thangavel16.07.7918.11.99 AN26.02.08 AN https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The persons mentioned in Sl.Nos.1 to 21 have been arrayed asrespondents 3 to 23 in W.P.Nos.8870 of 2008. The above details makeit crystal clear that the respondents 3 to 23 have put in a total andcombined service of more than a period of 20 years and as such theyare coming well within the required experience contemplated in theabove said rules. It is further seen from the letter dated06.07.2009 in letter No.7746/HK1/2009-4 written by the Secretary toGovernment as produced by the learned Additional Advocate Generalthat while preparing the panel for the year 2006-2007, 43 JEs weretaken up for consideration and only 27 JEs including the respondents3, 4 and 5 were found to be competent for appointment as ADE and theywere selected. Similarly, while preparing the panel for the year2007-2008, 27 JEs were taken up for consideration and only therespondents 6 to 23 were found to be competent for appointment to thepost of ADE and hence, they were selected. It is further revealedfrom the said letter that in the panel for the year 2008-2009 whichis under preparation, the cases of 22 JEs have been taken up forconsideration and out of which only 12 JEs, are found to be competentfor appointment as ADE. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 not onlytaken into consideration the experience of the respondents 3 to 28,but also the respondents 3 to 28 found to be efficient and competentto be promoted as ADE. The rule does not contemplate conducting ofany special test for ascertaining the competency and efficiency andit is for the Government to examine and assess their efficiency andcompetency from their record of service. Therefore, the respondents3 to 23 have been appointed as ADEs within the quota earmarked forthe JEs as they found to be qualified, eligible, competent andefficient for the post of ADEs. 38. The decision cited by Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel forthe petitioners in N.Suresh Nathan V. Union of India reported in CDJ1991 SC 033 is in respect of the diploma holders/JEs obtaining degreewhile in service and it was held that the period of three years is tobe reckoned from the date of obtaining degree and not earlier andtherefore, the said decision is not applicable to the questioninvolved in the instant case. Even in the above said decision, itwas held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that,"5. The only question before us is of theconstruction of the provision and not of the validitythereof and, therefore, we are only required to construethe meaning of the provision."Therefore, it is to be re-iterated, as already stated, that theprovisions under Rules 9 and 10 are very clear and unambiguous andfollowed considerably for a long time and as such the settledpractice cannot be unsettled and that too, the petitioners having notchallenged the above said rules. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

39. The unreported judgment relied by the learned counsel forthe petitioners in W.A.No.1542 of 1992 dated 30.10.2003 is notapplicable to the facts of the instant case.40. The next question is about requirement of educationalqualification for the JEs (diploma holders). As per Rule 9(a), therequired qualification for JEs (diploma holders) is the possession ofUpper Subordinate or L.C.E. Diploma of the College of Engineering,Guindy, or the L.C.E. Diploma of the Technological Diploma Board,Madras or a diploma in Engineering of any University or Institutionrecognised by the University Grants Commission for the purpose of itsgrant. Rule 10(b)(2)(a) prescribes possession of Upper Subordinateor L.C.E. Diploma of the College of Engineering, Guindy, or theL.C.E., L.M.E., or L.A.E., Diploma of the Technological DiplomaBoard, Madras or any diploma in Engineering. Rule 10(b)(3)(a)prescribes possession of Lower Sub-ordinate Diploma of the College ofEngineering, Guindy, or any Diploma of Engineering.41.1. At this juncture, it is relevant to note thatMr.P.S.Raman, learned Additional Advocate General produced twoletters before this Court during the course of his arguments, viz.,(i) a letter written by the Secretary to Government, to theAdditional Advocate General, dated 06.07.2009 and (ii) another letterwritten by the Additional Director, Polytechnics, (Directorate ofTechnical Education), Chennai, to the Additional Secretary, Highwaysand Minor Ports Department, Secretariat, Chennai, dated 20.07.2009,as stated above. A perusal of the letter dated 06.07.2009 revealsthat the respondents 3 to 23 are possessing necessary educationalqualification as R-3 to R-5 and R-9 to R-11 are possessing DCE/BE, R-7, R-8 and R-12 are possessing B.E. and others possessing DCE. It isfurther revealed from the said letter that the Technological DiplomaBoard, Madras, mentioned in Section 10(b)(2)(a) is presently calledas the Directorate of Technical Education and further the L.C.E., andL.M.E., diplomas mentioned in the same rule 10(b)(2)(a) are now knownas D.C.E., and D.M.E., awarded by the Directorate of TechnicalEducation. It is seen from the above said letter dated 06.07.2009that the respondent 24 is holding D.C.R.E. (Declared as equivalent toDCE in G.O.Ms.No.51, Education Department, dated 15.04.1971), therespondents 25, 26 and 28 are B.E. holders and the respondent 27 isholding D.C.E. 41.2. A perusal of the letter dated 20.07.2009 reveals that theL.C.E., and L.M.E., awarded by the Directorate of TechnicalEducation, Tamil Nadu, is equivalent to Diploma in Civil Engineering(D.C.E.) and Diploma in Mechanical Engineering (D.M.E.) respectivelyawarded by the State Board of Technical Education and Training, TamilNadu. 41.3. The above said materials produced before this Court makeit abundantly clear that the respondents 3 to 28 are coming well https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ within the prescribed educational qualification as per the rulesstated above. 42. The next controversy raised in this matter is that thepetitioners contended that the first respondent while replying for aquery raised under the Right to Information Act, 2005 stated that therespondents 3 to 23 were promoted under Rule 10(b)(2)(a) and (b) andnot under Rule 10(c)(3)(a) and (b). It is contended that therespondents 1 and 2 in these petitions also not stated in theircounter as to under what provision the respondents 3 to 23 have beenpromoted as ADE. It is true that the Additional Secretary toGovernment replied to the query under the RTI Act, 2005 stating thatthe respondents 3 to 23 have been promoted under Rule 10(b)(2)(a) and(b) and not under 10(c)(3) a & b. In the letter written by theSecretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports (HK1) Department tothe Additional Advocate General dated 06.07.2009, it is specificallystated that the respondents 3 to 23 have been appointed under Rule 10(2)(a) and (b). It is seen that in the letter instead of referring10(b)(2)(a) and (b), it is plainly mentioned as sub-rule 2(a) & (b)of Rule 10. It is further stated in the said letter that the L.C.E.and L.M.E. Diploma mentioned under sub-rule 2(a) and (b) of Rule 10are now known as D.C.E., and D.M.E., awarded by the Directorate ofTechnical Education and the respondents 3 to 28 are possessing theaforesaid technical qualification. 43. It is pertinent to note that both under 10(b)(2)(a) and 10(b)(3)(a), it is specifically stated that apart from the UpperSubordinate/Lower Subordinate diploma of the College of Engineering,Guindy, or L.C.E., L.M.E. or L.A.E., Diploma of the TechnologicalDiploma Board, Madras, it is stated as "or any other diploma inEngineering", which means possession of any diploma in engineering issufficient. It is specifically stated in the counter filed by therespondents 1 and 2 in W.P.No.10183 of 2009 that the College ofEngineering, Guindy, is not conducting any diploma course inHighways, Civil or Mechanical Engineering and similar statement wasalso made in the letter written by the Secretary to Government to theAdditional Advocate General dated 06.07.2009 produced before thisCourt. It is pertinent to note that JEs required to possessqualification and experience mentioned in rule 10(b)(2)(a) and (b) or10(b)(3)(a) and (b) and as such both the provisions should be readtogether and not in isolation and it is sufficient for therespondents 3 to 28 to satisfy the requirement of qualification andexperience under any one of the above said provisions.44. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that quotingthe provisions of sub-rule to rule 10 is immaterial and irrelevantand the respondents are coming well within the required qualificationand experience under both the provisions, viz., rule 10(b)(2)(a) and(b) and 10(b)(3)(a) and (b). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

45. Mr.N.Subramaniyan, learned counsel for the petitionerslastly contended that even as per Rule 10(b)(4), no JE, who has atotal service of less than five years shall be eligible for promotionas ADE even if he acquires B.E. Degree. At the outset, I am unableto accept the said contention. The said rule deals in respect of theperson obtaining degree in engineering or its equivalent afterappointment. The said rule also contemplates of completion of eitherten years of total service or three years of service from the date ofobtaining degree whichever is earlier. It is to be stated that therespondents 3 to 28 are concerned, they are not claiming anypromotion on the basis of obtaining B.E. Degree subsequent to theirappointment in the lower category and as such, this Court need not gointo the interpretation of the said rule as it is immaterial in viewof the issue involved in this matter.46.1. It is seen that two associations, viz., Association ofEngineers, Chennai, and Association of Tamilnadu Highways Engineers,filed two writ petitions in W.P.Nos.9842 of 2009 and 10183 of 2009respectively. The learned senior counsel for the respondents byplacing reliance on the decision of this Court in Tamil NaduUthaviperum Thodakka Nadunilai Palli Nirvagigal V. State of TamilNadu and others reported in 2006 (1) L.L.N. 759 contended that arepresentative writ petition in a service matter is not maintainable. 46.2. The learned Additional Advocate General also contendedthat a similar view was taken by the First Bench of this Courtrecently. 46.3. However, the learned senior counsel for the petitionerscontended that the said decisions could be distinguished by citingother decisions. In view of the fact that the AEs (petitioners) filedindividual writ petitions, this Court is of the considered view thatthe question of maintainability of a representative writ petition ina service matter need not be gone into and the same is left open.47. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the consideredview that these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed as devoidof merits and accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently,connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.48. The petitioners 2 and 3 in W.P.No.8870 of 2008 havewithdrawn this petition as per the endorsement made by their counseland as such W.P.No.8870 of 2008 is hereby dismissed as withdrawninsofar as the petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/ggSub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Secretary, Highways Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2. The Chief Engineer (Gl.), Highways Department, Public Works Department Campus, Chepauk, Chennai -5.+ 7 c.cs. to M/s. G. Ethirajulu, Advocate. S.R.Nos.46052 & 45603.+ 2 c.cs. to M/s. Sivam Sivanandraj, Advocate. S.R.No.45566.+ 1 cc. to Mr. N. Subramaniyan, Advocate. S.R.No.45558.+ 1 c.c. to M/s. R. Rangaramanujam, Advocate. S.R.No.45524.+ 1 c.c. to M/s. M. Muthappan, Advocate. S.R.No.45521.+ 1 c.c. to M/s. L. Chandrakumar, Advocate. S.R.No.45619.+ 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.No.45927. order in W.P.Nos.8870 of 2008, 9093 and 27694 of 2008 9260 of 2009, 9838, 9839, 9842, 9857 to 9861, 10183, 10486 and 10577 of 2009KSK (CO)GSK/KM/BMD/PMK 11.09.2009.