M.Palaniappan v. The Vice Chancellor Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27.4.2009CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P.Nos.29124 and 29326 of 2007M.Palaniappan.. Petitioner in WP:29124/07N.Murugan.. Petitioner in WP:29326/07Vs.1. The Vice Chancellor Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Madhavaram Milk Colony Chennai-51.2. The Registrar Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Madhavaram Milk Colony Chennai-51.3. The Estate Officer Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Madhavaram Milk Colony Chennai-51.4. Gunasekaran (impleaded as per orders even dated 21.8.2008 in MP.1/08 in WP.No.29124/2007 and MP.1/08 in WP.No.29326/2007).. Respondentsin both W.Ps.PRAYER: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India forissue of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated herein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioners:Mr.Kannan for M/s.P.V.Rangarajanfor petitioner in WP:29124/07Mr.R.Amizhdufor petitioner in WP:29326/07For Respondents:Mr.S.Vijayakumarfor 1st respondent in both WPsMr.G.RajagopalanSenior Counselfor Mr.R.Ravifor 4th respondent in both WPsNo appearancefor respondents 2 and 3in both WPs.COMMON ORDERThe writ petitioners challenge the circular of the secondrespondent dated 28.8.2007 and pray for a direction against therespondents to select the petitioners as per the Regulations andAmendment dated 19.5.2006 framed under the Tamil Nadu Veterinary andAnimal Sciences University Act, (for brevity, "the Act").2.1 The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.29124 of 2007 is thathe has completed Diploma in Civil Engineering and joined the serviceas Junior Engineer on 13.8.1993 in the Office of the Directorate ofCentre for Animal Health Studies, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Chennai-51, in which post he was working till the year 1999. He wastransferred to the Estate Office, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and AnimalSciences University, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Chennai from the year1999 till November, 2000. Later, he was transferred to MadrasVeterinary College, Vepery, Chennai-7 and was working from November,2000 to 2003 as Junior Engineer. He was transferred to PoultryResearch Station from 12.11.2003 to 15.9.2004 and later wastransferred to Madras Veterinary College, Vepery, Chennai-7 again.It is stated that, in the meantime, viz., during the year 2003, hehas joined B.E. Course in Civil Engineering and the next promotionalavenue for him is Assistant Executive Engineer.2.2. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.29326 of 2007 is thathe has completed Diploma in Civil Engineering and joined the serviceas Junior Engineer on 5.3.1990 in the Madras Veterinary College,Chennai-7 till 1994. He was transferred to the Fisheries Collegeand Research Institute, Tuticorin and served as Junior Engineer till https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1997, during which year he was transferred to Madras VeterinaryCollege and worked there till 2006. Later, he was transferred to theoffice of Estate Officer of Tamil Nadu Veterinary and AnimalSciences University in the year 2006 and he is working there as ondate and the next promotional avenue for him is also AssistantExecutive Engineer.3. It is the case of the petitioners that, by virtue of thepowers conferred under the Act, the Board of Management of thesecond respondent/University has evolved certain procedure forselection to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. Thepromotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, by virtue ofthe said amendment, was decided to be effected in the ratio of 3:1,viz., by promotion from among the persons holding the post ofAssistant Engineer and by recruitment by transfer from among theJunior Engineers respectively. 4. The complaint of the petitioners is that the University hasissued a circular dated 28.8.2007, by which it was proposed to fillup the vacancy of Assistant Executive Engineer by stipulating thequalification as for Degree holders with B.E. Degree with five yearsof experience in the cadres of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) andfor Diploma in Engineering holders with not less than ten years ofservice in the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical). 5. The real grievance of the petitioners is that under theamendment made for the selection process dated 19.5.2006, theUniversity has only stated the qualification as B.E. or equivalentexamination with five years of experience in the cadre of the postof Assistant Engineer and Diploma in Engineering with not less thanten years experience in the post of Junior Engineer, without statinganything about Mechanical or Civil, which means that even a personholding Degree in Civil Engineering will be entitled to promotion asAssistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical), whereas in the circularissued on 28.8.2007, which is impugned, a restriction has been madestipulating that only the Mechanical Engineers are qualified for thepost of Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical) and therefore,according to the petitioners, the same is arbitrary, as thepetitioners, who have put in more than the requisite years ofservice are not able to get promotion to the post of AssistantExecutive Engineer. It is the case of the petitioners that eventhough they are eligible for promotion as per the amendment to thepost of Assistant Executive Engineer, by the impugned circular theirpromotional avenue has been stalled by imposing a restriction thatonly Junior Engineer (Mechanical) or Assistant Engineer (Mechanical)are entitled to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer(Mechanical). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. It is stated in the counter affidavit that till the date ofthe amendment, which was brought out on 19.5.2006, the method ofselection to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer was only fromamong the B.E. Degree holders with five years experience in the postof Assistant Engineer or Junior Engineer and that was only bypromotion among the Assistant Engineers or Junior Engineers, havingthe said qualification. It was only to give promotional avenue tothe non B.E. Degree holders like that of the petitioners, who havebeen languishing for many years working as Junior Engineers, theamendment was brought in, by which, by the method of recruitment bytransfer even Diploma holders in Engineering with not less than tenyears of service in the post of Junior Engineer were also directedto be promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 3:1 basis, asstated above, which means that when three persons are appointed bypromotion from among the B.E. Degree holders with five years ofexperience in the post of Assistant Engineer, one person will beappointed by recruitment by transfer from among the Diploma inEngineering holders with not less than ten years of experience asJunior Engineers. The said amendment has come into effect from7.4.2006.7. It is stated that when the post of Assistant ExecutiveEngineer, either by promotion or by recruitment by transfer, isfilled, necessarily the holders of B.E. Degree must belong to theparticular branch, namely, either Civil or Mechanical or Electrical.Simply because in the amendment, while mentioning about thequalification and the method of selection it is only stated as B.E.Degree with five years of experience in the post of AssistantEngineer or Diploma in Engineering with not less than ten years ofexperience in the post of Junior Engineer, it does not mean that theB.E. Degree holder in Civil can be appointed as Assistant ExecutiveEngineer (Mechanical). That was never the intention and that cannever also be the intention, since it is obvious that a CivilEngineering Graduate cannot act as a Mechanical Engineer and aMechanical Engineering Graduate cannot act as a Civil Engineer.8. In respect of M/s.V.S.Sethumathavan, M.Justindurai andK.Ramamoorthy, it is stated that they are all B.E. Degree Holders inCivil and they have all been promoted as Assistant ExecutiveEngineer (Civil) on 8.12.1989, 5.6.1991 and 5.9.1995 respectivelyand therefore, there is no promotion without qualification. It isalso specifically denied that one V.Mohan with educationqualification of Diploma in Civil Engineering was posted asAssistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical). It is specificallystated that the said individual was appointed as Assistant ExecutiveEngineer (Civil) by transfer in the said ratio of 3:1 and therefore,the appointment was post-oriented and not person-oriented. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. While it was the contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioners that, by virtue of the impugned circular dated28.8.2007, a discrimination is sought to be shown by specificallyincluding the Cadre of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) or JuniorEngineer (Mechanical) for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer(Mechanical), which was not the purport of the amendment made on19.5.2006 and therefore, the entire act become violative of Article14 of the Constitution of India, it is the contention ofMr.S.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the first respondent that thewrit petitions, on the face of it, are not maintainable and arevexatious. It is his submission that merely because in theamendment it is not specifically stated in the qualification andmethod of selection column about the Degree with Branch, viz.,either Civil or Mechanical or Electrical, it does not mean that whena vacancy in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical)arises, a person holding the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) orJunior Engineer (Civil) can be posted. The stream of studies in thethree branches are entirely distinct and different and one cannot bequalified for the other.10. Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior counsel appearing for thefourth respondent, who has been impleaded, while adopting thearguments of the first respondent/University would also submit thatliterally, the meaning of the word qualification and method ofselection wherein B.E. Degree or Diploma in Engineering is mentionedshould be read as B.E. Degree in a particular branch either Civil orMechanical or Electrical, in which the vacancies arise, and no otherforeign meaning can be imputed as per the latin maxim reddendosingula singulis. 11. After hearing the arguments of the respective counsel andon referring to the various documents, it is clear that before theamendment was brought in by the respondent/University and its Boardof Management, namely before 19.5.2006, the post of AssistantExecutive Engineer Civil or Mechanical or Electrical has been filledup only by way of promotion among the B.E. Degree holders havingfive years of experience as Assistant Engineer or Junior Engineer.It is only for the purpose of enabling the Junior Engineers withDiploma in Engineering like that of the petitioners, who have beenworking for many years in the respondent/University, to have achance of being promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer Civil orMechanical or Electrical, the University passed an amendment bygiving a chance to the Diploma holders along with the Degree holdersholding the post of Assistant Engineer and that was in the ratio of3:1, by which three posts are given to the Assistant Engineers withB.E. Degree with five years of experience in the post of AssistantEngineer and one post was given to Junior Engineers with Diploma inEngineering with not less than 10 years of experience as JuniorEngineer. The amendment, which has been brought out by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ University under S.No.40, Appendix-1B of the Regulations, is asfollows:Sl.No.Name of theposts and scalesof payQualificationMethod ofSelection40AssistantExecutiveEngineer (Civil/Mechanical/Electrical)Rs.8000-275-135001. By Promotion:i) B.E. or equivalentexamination approved by anyUniversityii) 5 years of experience inthe cadre of the post ofAssistant Engineer.2. By Recruitment bytransfer:Diploma in Engineering withnot less than 10 years ofservice in the post of JuniorEngineer.By promotionfrom among thepost ofAssistantEngineer/Recruitment bytransfer fromamong the postof JuniorEngineer in theratio of 3:112. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitionersis that for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil orMechanical or Electrical), which are certainly distinct anddifferent in nature, while stipulating qualification either bypromotion or recruitment by transfer, the amendment has not statedB.E. Degree in a particular subject, either Civil or Mechanical orElectrical, or the Diploma in Engineering in Civil or Mechanical orElectrical and therefore, it should be taken that either bypromotion or recruitment by transfer if a post of AssistantExecutive Engineer is to be filled up, whatever may be the brancheither Civil or Mechanical or Electrical, any person having B.E.Degree or Diploma in Engineering in any branch will be entitled tosuch promotion. The said submission is purely a fallacy, whichcannot be accepted by any stretch of imagination. When, admittedly,in the Engineering Courses, Civil or Mechanical or Electrical aredistinct branches, one cannot say that simply because a person has aqualification of B.E (Civil), he will be entitled to act as anEngineer in Mechanical field or Electrical field also. 13. When once the Engineering Courses are conducted branchwise, which are distinct in character, and not a general Degree,like that of B.L. Degree, it is not open to the petitioners toassume that any Engineering Graduate in any branch will be able towork as an Engineer in any branch. That can never be the purport. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ This is a common knowledge that a Civil Engineer with Degree inCivil Engineering cannot act as a Mechanical Engineer at all.Therefore, merely because the amendment has not chosen to statespecifically, while mentioning about the B.E. Degree or Diploma inEngineering, Civil or Mechanical or Electrical, it does not meanthat Engineering graduate or Diploma in Engineering holders of anybranch can act as Engineer in any branch.14. In this regard, as submitted by Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learnedSenior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, by applying themaxim reddendo singula singulis, the meaning of the wordqualification and method of selection, wherein B.E. Degree orDiploma in Engineering is mentioned should be read as B.E. Degree ina particular branch either Civil or Mechanical or Electrical, inwhich the vacancies arise. Importing of a different meaning wouldbe totally opposed to the principles of different branches inEngineering and that may lead to a situation where a B.E. Degreeholder in Civil Engineering may be entitled to work as an Engineerin Mechanical side or a B.E. Degree holder in Mechanical may beeligible to work as an Engineer in Electrical side, which can neverbe possible as B.E. Degree is not given as a general degree by anyUniversity. That may be possible in respect of the Arts Course orB.L. Course, where there may not be any specialization.15. In such view of the matter, simply because in the amendmentwhich has been brought out by the University a specific branch hasnot been mentioned it can never be construed to mean anything.16. In the circular issued by the University dated 28.8.2007,the University has only proposed to draw a panel of promotion inrespect of only Mechanical Engineers and it was for that purposethey have asked for qualified personnel from Assistant Engineers(Mechanical) with B.E. Degree with five years of experience andJunior Engineers (Mechanical) with Diploma in Engineering with notless than ten years of service. Inasmuch as it is clear from theversion of the University that the panel of Assistant ExecutiveEngineer has been prepared separately for Mechanical, Civil andElectrical, it cannot be said that any person of any branch in thecadre of Assistant Engineer or Junior Engineer can be made eligiblefor the promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical). Inmy considered opinion, as the appointment is post-oriented and notperson-oriented, it is not possible to accept the contention of thelearned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned circular isillegal. For the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation to concludethat the writ petitions are vexatious and are liable to bedismissed. These writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. Thepetitioners in these writ petitions shall pay cost of Rs.5000/- each https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the Chief Justice Relief Fund within a period of ten days.Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 and 2 of 2008 in W.P.No.29124of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 and 2 of 2008 in W.P.No.29326of 2007 are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarsasiTo:1. The Vice Chancellor Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Madhavaram Milk Colony Chennai-51.2. The Registrar Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Madhavaram Milk Colony Chennai-51.3. The Estate Officer Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Madhavaram Milk Colony Chennai-51.4.The Officer Incharge,Chief Justice Relief Fund,High Court, Madras.+2ccs to Mr.R.Ravi,Advocate Sr18308+1cc to Mr.R.Amizhdu, Advocate Sr 18508+2ccs to Mr.S.Vijayakumar, Advocate Sr 18351,18352+1cc to Mr.PV.Rangaraajan,Advocate Sr 18420SSN(CO)km/29.4.W.P.Nos.29124 and 29326 of 2007