Technical Assistants are in no way encroaching upon quota apportioned for directly recruited Assistant Engineers: Top Court dismisses appeal filed by Association of Engineers in PWD recruitment case
Justices B.R. Gavai & Sandeep Mehta [16-04-2024]

Read Order: ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERS AND OTHERS ETC v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS ETC [SC- CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4886-4888 OF 2023]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, April 17, 2024: While dismissing an appeal filed by the Association of Engineers challenging the appointment of Technical Assistant as Assistant Engineers in Tamil Nadu Government's Public Works Department, the Supreme Court has remarked that the attempt of the appellant Association was to grab all the posts available, even those apportioned for the candidates promoted from subordinate services. 

The facts giving rise to present appeals were that on January 2, 1990, the Tamil Nadu Government's Public Works Department (PWD) issued an order accepting the recommendations of Chief Engineer, PWD (General) and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) and directed that from the date of this order, Junior Draughting Officers, Draughting Officers, Overseers and Technical Assistants, who have completed 5 years of service and acquired B.E./A.M.I.E. qualification, will be entitled to be appointed as Assistant Engineers on transfer of service.

On January 22, 1991, Government Order being G.O. Ms. No. 88 of 1991 came to be issued wherein it was clarified that TNPSC need not be consulted for appointment of Junior Draughting Officers, Draughting Officers, Overseers and Technical Assistants. 

A Writ Petition came to be filed before the Madras High Court by Engineering Graduates challenging G.O. No.1. The same were dismissed. Another was issued by the TNPSC for direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers. The Tribunal allowed the applications filed by Junior Draughting Officers and Draughting Officers, however, dismissed the applications filed by Technical Assistants. Thereafter, Association of Engineers, one of the appellants herein filed Writ Petition before the Madras High Court was dismissed and the appeal before the Top Court against the same was also dismissed.

From 1999 till 2002, a total number of 491 vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineers were notified to be filled up. The State Government, due to dearth of eligible candidates to fill the remaining 93 vacancies by transfer, issued directions directing appointment of persons in the category of Technical Assistant, who possessed B.E./A.M.I.E. qualification in Civil Engineering and rendered 5 years of service on a temporary basis.

Vide Proceedings conducted in the year 2006, 21 Technical Assistants were appointed as Assistant Engineers on temporary basis. The Association of Engineers challenged the above mentioned appointment order. Vide order dated December 23, 2014, the Single Judge restrained the official respondents from appointing Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers by recruitment by transfer unless and until the statutory rules were amended making Technical Assistants as feeder category.  

Being aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge, writ appeals were filed before the Division Bench by the respondents whereby the impugned order was quashed. Thus, the appellants approached the Top Court.

It was the case of the appellants that the appointment of Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers was totally illegal, violative of Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also violative of Article 335 which mandates efficiency in public administration. It was submitted that that the entry of Assistant Engineers is through competitive examination on the basis of merit whereas the entry of Technical Assistants is by appointment by the Superintending Engineer.

It was noticed by the Division Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice Sandeep Mehta that the Technical Assistants were not claiming against the 75% posts available for direct recruits. Their claim was only towards 25% posts which were required to be filled in from Junior Draughting Officers, Overseers and Technical Assistants who have put five years service and have acquired B.E./A.M.I.E. qualification.

“It is thus clear that the Technical Assistants are, in no way, encroaching upon the quota apportioned for directly recruited Assistant Engineers. Even if their contention is accepted that once they are brought in the cadre of Assistant Engineers, they would lose their birthmark, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of B. Thirumal (supra), for the higher post, and there will be no competition amongst direct recruits and promotees. Whereas the direct recruits would be entitled to get promotional posts from 75% quota apportioned for them, the Technical Assistants along with other placed amongst them would be entitled to promotional posts only from 25% posts apportioned for them”, it held while placing reliance upon B. Thirumal v. Ananda Sivakumar and Others. 

The contention of the appellants that, the services of the Technical Assistants were not regularized, was also contrary to record. Moreover, the State Government was required to take a decision to appoint Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers on temporary basis as it was found that out of 122 vacancies apportioned to the post of Assistant Engineer to be filled up by recruitment by transfer, only 29 vacancies had been filled so far. It appeared that the attempt of the appellant association was to grab all the posts available even those apportioned for the candidates promoted from subordinate services. According to the Bench, said attitude was totally unequitable.

Referring to the judgement in Narpat Singh and Others v. Jaipur Development Authority and Another, the Bench said, “ In any case, any interference at this stage is likely to undo the settled position which has been prevalent almost for a period of last 18 years. As already held hereinabove, the continuation of the appellants as Assistant Engineers would not amount to encroaching upon the 75% posts apportioned for the members of the appellants’ association.”

Thus, observing that no interference was warranted, the Bench dismissed the appeal.