CHENNAI: Once direct recruits and promotees are absorbed into one cadre, they form one class and they cannot be further classified for the purpose of promotion, the Madras High Court has ruled.

Rejecting a batch of writ pleas and an appeal from the Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers Association, a Division Bench, comprising Justices P. Sathasivam and S. Manikumar, said the Supreme Court categorically held that there could not be further bifurcation of the existing ratio in favour of recruits from one source as against recruits from another in the matter of promotion.

The petitioners were appointed overseers by the then Highways and Rural Works Department, and they did not have proper avenues for promotion, especially for the post of Assistant Engineers. In December 1996, a separate engineering wing was created in the department, and in 1998, their right for promotion to the Assistant and Junior Engineer cadre was recognised.

Quota sought

The petitioners, claiming separate identity within the same pool of Assistant Engineers (AE), said they had lost age and seniority owing to their service in the subordinate engineering service. The seniority of direct recruits was based on the date of entering service, whereas for the promotees seniority could only be based on the date of passing the degree qualification, they contended.

They also sought 50 per cent reservation for promotion to the Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) cadre.

Countering the claim, the Government said the engineering wing was a technical department, requiring minimum five years experience for an individual to acquire the necessary experience.

Also, none of the petitioners had any legal right to be promoted AEEs as they lacked the minimum experience.

The Bench said it could not ignore the the Government's stand that the minimum experience was stipulated for the incumbents to acquire the needed practical experience to achieve administrative efficiency.

Already benefited

It pointed out that they already benefited from the Government decision to take their past services into account from their date of absorption.

It said: "They would be completing the five years of service as AEs only on September 2, 2007. As on date, they are all juniors to the direct recruits; hence, they cannot unfairly ask for relief contrary to the procedure and statutory provisions so as to divest the dividend accruable to their seniors/direct recruits."

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail