Supreme Court Upholds Appointment Of Technical Assistants As Assistant Engineers In TN PWD
While upholding the decision of the Tamil Nadu Government to appoint Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers in the Public Works Department, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 16) expressed displeasure over the attitude of the Association of Engineers in Tamil Nadu to grab all posts of Assistant Engineers in the State without leaving the posts for the candidates promoted from the...
While upholding the decision of the Tamil Nadu Government to appoint Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers in the Public Works Department, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 16) expressed displeasure over the attitude of the Association of Engineers in Tamil Nadu to grab all posts of Assistant Engineers in the State without leaving the posts for the candidates promoted from the subordinate services.
“It can thus clearly be seen that 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 appears that the attempt of the appellant association is to grab all the posts available even those apportioned for the candidates promoted from subordinate services. In our view, the said attitude is totally unequitable.”, the Bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta said.
The case relates to the appointment of the Assistant Engineers in the State of Tamil Nadu, where out of a total number of positions, 75% of the posts were to be filled up by way of direct recruitment, and the remaining 25% of posts were to be filled up by recruitment by transfer.
Due to the dearth of eligible candidates to fill the remaining vacancies by transfer, the state government issued directions directing the appointment of 21 persons in the category of Technical Assistant, who possessed B.E./A.M.I.E. qualification in Civil Engineering and have rendered 5 years of service on a temporary basis.
The appointment of Technical Assistants to the post of Assistant Engineer was challenged by the Appellant/Association of Engineers contending that such an appointment was arbitrary and illegal as the entire recruitment exercise encroaches the 75% of posts reserved for the Association and was carried out through a backdoor entry i.e. without conducting the examinations
Rejecting such contention, the Judgment authored by Justice BR Gavai stated that the Technical Assistants are, in no way, encroaching upon the quota apportioned for directly recruited Assistant Engineers.
With regards to the Association's contention that if the respondents/technical assistants were appointed to the post of the Assistant Engineers then their quota for the promotion would be disturbed. The court clarified that there would 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.”, the court clarified.
The court noted the attitude of the Appellant-Association as unequitable to grab all the posts available even those apportioned for the candidates promoted from subordinate services.
Observing that no interference of the court is warranted under Article 136 of the Constitution, the court dismissed the appeal.
Counsels For Appellant(s) Mrs. Madhavi Divan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv. 1 Mr. Naveen Kumar Murthy, Adv. Mr. N. Subramaniyan, Adv. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR Mr. Jatin Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Aakriti, Adv. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Adv. Ms. Neha Rathi, AOR Mr. Kamal Kishore, Adv. Ms. Kajal Giri, Adv.
Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Prakash, Sr. Adv. Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, Sr. Adv. Mr. K.K. Mani, AOR Mr. G. Veerapathiran, Adv. Ms. T. Archana, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegda, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. Kumanan, AOR Mr. Sheikh F Kalia, Adv. Mrs. Deepa. S, Adv. Ms. Beno Deswal, Adv. Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sonakshi Malhan, AOR Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Adv. Ms. Neha Rathi, AOR Mr. Kamal Kishore, Adv. Ms. Kajal Giri, Adv. Mr. P. Rajendran,Adv. Mr. S. Beno Bencigar,Adv. Mr. Parijat Kishore,Adv.
Case Title: ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERS vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 304