Madras High Court
State Of Tamil Nadu vs K.Gopi on 22 October, 2024
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
W.A.(MD)No.145 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON: 20.09.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 22.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.A.(MD)No.145 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.427 of 2021
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Principal Secretary Government,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Urban Administration Office Complex,
9th and 10th Floor, 75, Santhome High Road,
Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028.
3.The Director of Town Panchayats,
Urban Administration Office Complex,
9th and 10th Floor, 75, Santhome High Road,
Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. ... Appellants
vs
1.K.Gopi
2.S.Karuppiah
3.R.Janarthanan Prabu
4.U.Chandramohan
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.145 of 2021
5.N.Sridharan
6.E.Mariyappan
7.M.Kalaignanasundaram
8.S.Singarayar
9.S.Thomas Anand
10.G.P.Ravichandar
11.D.Rajajayaboopalan
12.N.Vijayakumar
13.M.Avudaipandi
14.S.Sethuramalingam
15.M.Manickam
16.C.Poosamy
17.M.Palani
18.K.Sivakumar
19.N.Palani
20.V.Sundaram
21.K.Manimudayan
22.C.Sembandamoorthy
23.R.T.Saravanan
24.M.Seerpadhavelan
25.K.V.Baskaran
26.N.Prabhakaran
27.P.Nalini
28.B.Gomathi Sankar
29.C.Venkatesan
30.R.Ganapathy Venkatesan
31.N.Annam
32.R.Rajkumar
33.R.Jayakumar
34.E.Geetha
35.R.S.Venkatachalam
36.M.Shanmugam ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside
the order of this Court dated 27.11.2019 passed in W.P(MD)No.23652 of
2019.
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.145 of 2021
For Appellants : Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar
Government Advocate
For R1 to R25 : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.)
The 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents in W.P.(MD)No.23652 of 2019
aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2019 of the learned Single Judge
allowing the said Writ Petition filed by the 1st to 25th respondents herein,
have filed the present Writ Appeal.
2.The Writ Petition had been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified
Mandamus seeking records of the second respondent in the Writ Petition/the
Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Urban Administration Office
Complex at Chennai, in connection with two impugned proceedings issued
in ROC.No.98/2019/F-2 dated 30.10.2019 and quash both proceedings with
respect to the sending of 4th to 13th respondents in the Writ Petition on
deputation to 3rd respondent department, namely, the Director of Town
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Panchayats, Urban Administration Office Complex, Chennai, as illegal and
without jurisdiction and to direct the 1st to 3rd respondents in the Writ
Petition to consider the case of the eligible Overseers working in the 3 rd
respondent in the Writ Petition for promotion to the post of Junior
Engineer/Assistant Engineer in the vacancies available within a time limit.
3.In effect, it had been claimed that the Writ Petitioners and 4th to 13th
respondents should be promoted as Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer in
the existing vacancies in the office of the Commissioner of Municipal
Administration and should not be sent on deputation to the Director of
Town Panchayats.
4.The Writ Petitioners and the 4th to 13th respondents in the Writ
Petition were working as Overseers in various Town Panchayats under the
control of the 2nd respondent in the Writ Petition, Commissioner of
Municipal Administration. They were eligible to be promoted as Junior
Engineer/Assistant Engineer in various Town Panchayats. However, they
were directed to be deputed to the Director of Town Panchayats. Similarly
placed Overseers had filed W.P.(MD)No.3782 of 2018 before this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and had obtained an order of interim stay by order dated 23.02.2018. There
were other Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.10804 to 10899 of 2019 filed before
the Principal Seat.
5.It had been contended that a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.
(MD)No.1136 of 2013 etc., batch by judgment dated 13.03.2014 held that
the Tamil Nadu Municipal Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 1970, is
not applicable to Town Panchayats and had therefore, directed the first
respondent in the Writ Petition, namely, Principal Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, to consider and
approve the draft rules sent by the third respondent in the Writ Petition.
6.The learned Single Judge while examining the Writ Petition had
observed that since the draft rules had been forwarded for consideration,
there was absence of Rules and therefore, the Municipal Engineering Rules
were not applicable to the Writ Petitioners or to the 3rd to 14th respondents
and that owing to deputation, the promotional opportunities of the Writ
Petitioners and of the 4th to 13th respondents in the Writ Petition were
directly affected and had allowed the Writ Petition. In effect, it would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
indicate that the Writ Petitioners and the 4th to 13th respondents in the Writ
Petition should be considered for promotion as Junior Engineer/Assistant
Engineer in the existing vacancies and should not be deputed to the Director
of Town Panchayats. Questioning that particular order, the present Writ
Appeal had been filed.
7.One of the main grounds urged by the learned Additional Advocate
General was that the draft rules of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Engineering
Service Rules had not been approved by the Government owing to
clarifications to be received and concurrence of advisory departments, like,
TNPSC, Finance, Personnel and Administrative Reforms etc. However, it is
not denied or disputed that in compliance of the order of the learned Single
Judge, the Writ Petitioners and the 4th to 13th respondents in the Writ
Petition have actually been promoted as Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer
in accordance with their qualification.
8.It is also not in dispute that as on date the Rules have also been
framed and the Rules which were indicated as draft rules have also been
approved and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. Since the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rules have been approved and published, the employees will have to be
afforded the promotional avenues as stipulated in the said Rules.
9.The Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023, with respect to
the Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Election) Department and
in accordance with G.O.(Ms)No.45, Municipal Administration and Water
Supply (Election) Department, dated 12.04.2023 had been published in the
Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary in Part-III-Section 1(a),
dated 12.04.2023. It had been notified under the powers conferred by
Section 198 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (TN Act 9 of
1999). According to the said rules, with respect to Tamil Nadu Panchayat
Engineering Wing, the post of Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer should be
appointed in accordance with the following Table:
“TABLE II.
2. TOWN PANCHAYAT ENGINEERING WING
Sl. Name of the Method of Appointment Qualification
No. Post
(1) (2) (3) (4)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1. Assistant (1) By direct recruitment; Must possess B.E. degree in
Engineer and Civil Engineering or
Mechanical Engineering or
Electrical Engineering or
any other qualification
considered equivalent
thereto awarded by any
recognized University or
Institution
(2) By promotion from (1) Must have passed the
among the holders of the Account Test for Public
posts of Junior Engineer: Works Department
Provided that the Subordinate Officer Part I
appointment by direct and Part II; and
recruitment and by (2) Must have rendered
promotion shall be made service as Junior Engineer
in the ratio 3:1. for a period of not less than
five years.
2. Junior By promotion form Must have rendered service
Engineer among the holders of the as Overseer for a period of
post of Overseer. not less than three years.”
10.There is no dispute raised that the Writ Petitioners and the 4th to
13th respondents in the Writ Petition have already been promoted. The
learned Additional Advocate General however sought to widen the scope of
the Writ Appeal by pointing out the eligibility of the Writ Petitioners and
the 4th to 13th respondents in the Writ Petition to be so promoted. But the
promotion has now become a fait accompli. The ground raised in the Writ
Appeal that the draft rules have not been approved does not hold water any
more in view of the notification of the rules in the Government Gazette and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
its implementation in letter and spirit.
11.In view of that particular fact, we hold that the Writ Appeal is only
an exercise in futility and we accordingly dismiss the Writ Appeal.
However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[C.V.K., J.] & [J.S.N.P., J.]
22.10.2024
Internet :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
cmr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
cmr
Judgment made in
22.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
