Dismissed

A.Gnanamani, v. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government

Madras HC8 Jul 2024WA(MD)/214/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench dismissed a writ appeal and connected petitions challenging notifications for recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer. The Court held the appellants lacked standing and their grievance was premature. The recommendations in the impugned Government Order, which were never implemented, were considered not binding. Very brief; litigation disposed without merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; the representations dated 29.06.2024 referred to the respondents for consideration strictly according to applicable rules.

A.Gnanamani, Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A(MD)No.214 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.07.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE and JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI

¶6

W.A(MD)No.214 of 2020 and CMP(MD)Nos.1440 and 1442 of 2020

¶7

1.A.Gnanamani

¶8

2.L.Dharmalingam ... Appellants/Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

State of Tamil Nadu,

¶11

Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Highways & Minor Ports Department, St.George Fort,Chennai - 9.

¶12

2.The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, No.3, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town,Chennai – 3.

¶13

3.The Director General (High Ways), Highways Department, Sardar Patel Road,HRS Campus, Guindy, Chennai – 25. ... Respondents/Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent as against the order passed by this Court dated 06.01.2020 in W.P(MD)No. 13408 of 2019 on the file of this Court.

¶15

For Appellants : Mr.T.Alwin Rajasimman For R1 & R3 : Mr.R.Baskaran Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.J.Anandakumar

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Page No.1 of 7

¶18

W.A(MD)No.214 of 2020

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SESHASAYEE, J. ]

¶21

This appeal is directed against an order dismissing W.P(MD)No.13408 of 2019 which the learned single Judge has dismissed along with W.P(MD)No.7139 of 2018, vide her common order dated 06.01.2020.

¶22

2. The appellants instituted the said writ petitions seeking to quash notification Nos. 05/2018 dated 28.02.2018 and 18/2019 dated 29.05.2019, issued by the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, the 2^nd respondent, alleging that it contravenes the Government Order in G.O. (Ms.)No.82, Highways & Minor Ports Department, dated 08.05.2012.

¶23

3. At the relevant time, the appellants were working as Junior Drafting Officers in Highways Department. While so, applications are invited for 123 posts of Assistant Engineer. According to the appellants, as per Tamilnadu Engineering Service Rule, the combined cadre strength of the Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer is fixed at 972 posts, and in terms of G.O.(Ms.) No.82, dated 08.05.2012, 75% thereof shall be earmarked for Assistant Engineer and the remaining 25% shall be earmarked for the Junior Engineer. The Assistant Engineer posts are

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

Page No.2 of 7

¶26

W.A(MD)No.214 of 2020

¶27

filled up by direct recruitment as well as by promotion from the Junior Engineer and also by transfer from other Departments.

¶28

4. This petition was resisted by the 2^nd respondent,TNPSC by contending that G.O.(Ms.)No.82, dated 08.05.2012, has made only recommendation

¶29

for bringing about amendment to Rule 18(a) of the Special Rules for the Tamilnadu Engineering Service, and that it has not been brought into force.

¶30

5. The learned single Judge has noted that by issuing amended draft rule

¶31

in G.O.Ms.No.82, Highways and Minor Ports Department dated 08.05.2012, the first respondent has fixed the cadre strength accruing every year in both cadres of Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer in the ratio of 75:25 respectively as per Rule 18(a) of the Special Rules for the Tamilnadu Engineering Service. However, inasmuch as this intended amendment has not been carried out, only the vacancies are now filled up in the ratio 75:25 as per Rule 18(a) of the Special Rules for the Tamilnadu Engineering Service. The appellants' challenge to the notifications inviting application for the post of Assistant Engineer by direct recruitment must therefore, be seen in the context.

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

Page No.3 of 7

¶34

W.A(MD)No.214 of 2020

¶35

¶36

6. As indicated earlier, the foundation for their cause of action is G.O.

¶37

(Ms.)No.82, dated 08.05.2012, but this is a recommendation, which has yet to be translated into amendment and indeed, the order of the learned single Judge indicated that there is even a proposal for withdrawal of this Government Order. The present notifications are for the year 2018-2019 and this Court is informed that the vacancies have been filled up in terms thereof.

¶38

7. Now turning to the grievance of the appellants, at the relevant time they were working as the Junior Drafting Officers and therefore, they will become Junior Engineers and not Assistant Engineers, whereas the notifications deal with the appointment to the post of the Assistant Engineers. Therefore, the anxiety of the appellants is one stage too early.

¶39

8. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have since been promoted as Junior Engineers on 07.02.2024, they have preferred representations for implementation of Rule 18(a) of the Special Rules for the Tamilnadu Engineering Service and to grant them notional promotion.

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

Page No.4 of 7

¶42

W.A(MD)No.214 of 2020

¶43

9. Turning to the merit of this appeal, as indicated earlier, when the notifications were issued, the appellants were working as the Assistant Drafting Officer. They may not have an immediate locus to challenge the notifications. Again, as indicated earlier, they appeared to have been entertained a misconception that part of the posts which would have been available for Junior Engineers in the total cadre strength is being taken away and added to the Assistant Engineer posts but this is not demonstrated.

¶44

10. In view of the same, this Court does not find merit in the appeal. So far as the representations dated 29.06.2024 are concerned, which the appellants claim, the respondents may consider the same but strictly in accordance with the rules applicable.

¶45

11. In the result, this appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶46

(N.S.S., J.) (P.V.M., J.) 08.07.2024 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No CM

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

Page No.5 of 7

¶49

W.A(MD)No.214 of 2020

¶50

To,

¶51

The Secretary to Government, Highways & Minor Ports Department, St.George Fort,Chennai - 9.

¶52

2.The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, No.3, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

¶53

3.The Director General (High Ways), Highways Department, Sardar Patel Road, HRS Campus, Guindy, Chennai – 25.

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

Page No.6 of 7

¶56

W.A(MD)No.214 of 2020

¶57

N.SESHASAYEE, J. and P.VADAMALAI, J.

¶58

¶59

Judgment made in W.A(MD)No.214 of 2020 and CMP(MD)Nos.1440 and 1442 of 2020

¶60

08.07.2024

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

Page No.7 of 7

A.Gnanamani, v. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Gnanamani, v. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. C.Gunasekar Vs M.Chellappa(Died)

The Assistant Manager (Legal) Vs Alagu Pandeeshwaran

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs Kalaimani

S.Latha Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

The Management, Vs N.Sivamani

The Management, Vs M.Sivakumar