IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.4.2009 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.Nos.29124 and 29326 of 2007 M.Palaniappan .. Petitioner in WP:29124/07 N.Murugan .. Petitioner in WP:29326/07 Vs. 1. The Vice Chancellor Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Madhavaram Milk Colony Chennai-51. 2. The Registrar Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Madhavaram Milk Colony Chennai-51. 3. The Estate Officer Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Madhavaram Milk Colony Chennai-51. 4. Gunasekaran (impleaded as per orders even dated 21.8.2008 in MP.1/08 in WP.No.29124/2007 and MP.1/08 in WP.No.29326/2007) .. Respondents in both W.Ps. PRAYER: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated herein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioners: Mr.Kannan for M/s.P.V.Rangarajan for petitioner in WP:29124/07 Mr.R.Amizhdu for petitioner in WP:29326/07 For Respondents: Mr.S.Vijayakumar for 1st respondent in both WPs Mr.G.Rajagopalan Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Ravi for 4th respondent in both WPs No appearance for respondents 2 and 3 in both WPs. COMMON ORDER The writ petitioners challenge the circular of the second respondent dated 28.8.2007 and pray for a direction against the respondents to select the petitioners as per the Regulations and Amendment dated 19.5.2006 framed under the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act, (for brevity, "the Act"). 2.1 The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.29124 of 2007 is that he has completed Diploma in Civil Engineering and joined the service as Junior Engineer on 13.8.1993 in the Office of the Directorate of Centre for Animal Health Studies, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Chennai- 51, in which post he was working till the year 1999. He was transferred to the Estate Office, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Chennai from the year 1999 till November, 2000. Later, he was transferred to Madras Veterinary College, Vepery, Chennai-7 and was working from November, 2000 to 2003 as Junior Engineer. He was transferred to Poultry Research Station from 12.11.2003 to 15.9.2004 and later was transferred to Madras Veterinary College, Vepery, Chennai-7 again. It is stated that, in the meantime, viz., during the year 2003, he has joined B.E. Course in Civil Engineering and the next promotional avenue for him is Assistant Executive Engineer. 2.2. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.29326 of 2007 is that he has completed Diploma in Civil Engineering and joined the service as Junior Engineer on 5.3.1990 in the Madras Veterinary College, Chennai-7 till 1994. He was transferred to the Fisheries College and Research Institute, Tuticorin and served as Junior Engineer till https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1997, during which year he was transferred to Madras Veterinary College and worked there till 2006. Later, he was transferred to the office of Estate Officer of Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University in the year 2006 and he is working there as on date and the next promotional avenue for him is also Assistant Executive Engineer. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that, by virtue of the powers conferred under the Act, the Board of Management of the second respondent/University has evolved certain procedure for selection to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, by virtue of the said amendment, was decided to be effected in the ratio of 3:1, viz., by promotion from among the persons holding the post of Assistant Engineer and by recruitment by transfer from among the Junior Engineers respectively. 4. The complaint of the petitioners is that the University has issued a circular dated 28.8.2007, by which it was proposed to fill up the vacancy of Assistant Executive Engineer by stipulating the qualification as for Degree holders with B.E. Degree with five years of experience in the cadres of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) and for Diploma in Engineering holders with not less than ten years of service in the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical). 5. The real grievance of the petitioners is that under the amendment made for the selection process dated 19.5.2006, the University has only stated the qualification as B.E. or equivalent examination with five years of experience in the cadre of the post of Assistant Engineer and Diploma in Engineering with not less than ten years experience in the post of Junior Engineer, without stating anything about Mechanical or Civil, which means that even a person holding Degree in Civil Engineering will be entitled to promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical), whereas in the circular issued on 28.8.2007, which is impugned, a restriction has been made stipulating that only the Mechanical Engineers are qualified for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical) and therefore, according to the petitioners, the same is arbitrary, as the petitioners, who have put in more than the requisite years of service are not able to get promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. It is the case of the petitioners that even though they are eligible for promotion as per the amendment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, by the impugned circular their promotional avenue has been stalled by imposing a restriction that only Junior Engineer (Mechanical) or Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) are entitled to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. It is stated in the counter affidavit that till the date of the amendment, which was brought out on 19.5.2006, the method of selection to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer was only from among the B.E. Degree holders with five years experience in the post of Assistant Engineer or Junior Engineer and that was only by promotion among the Assistant Engineers or Junior Engineers, having the said qualification. It was only to give promotional avenue to the non B.E. Degree holders like that of the petitioners, who have been languishing for many years working as Junior Engineers, the amendment was brought in, by which, by the method of recruitment by transfer even Diploma holders in Engineering with not less than ten years of service in the post of Junior Engineer were also directed to be promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 3:1 basis, as stated above, which means that when three persons are appointed by promotion from among the B.E. Degree holders with five years of experience in the post of Assistant Engineer, one person will be appointed by recruitment by transfer from among the Diploma in Engineering holders with not less than ten years of experience as Junior Engineers. The said amendment has come into effect from 7.4.2006. 7. It is stated that when the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, either by promotion or by recruitment by transfer, is filled, necessarily the holders of B.E. Degree must belong to the particular branch, namely, either Civil or Mechanical or Electrical. Simply because in the amendment, while mentioning about the qualification and the method of selection it is only stated as B.E. Degree with five years of experience in the post of Assistant Engineer or Diploma in Engineering with not less than ten years of experience in the post of Junior Engineer, it does not mean that the B.E. Degree holder in Civil can be appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical). That was never the intention and that can never also be the intention, since it is obvious that a Civil Engineering Graduate cannot act as a Mechanical Engineer and a Mechanical Engineering Graduate cannot act as a Civil Engineer. 8. In respect of M/s.V.S.Sethumathavan, M.Justindurai and K.Ramamoorthy, it is stated that they are all B.E. Degree Holders in Civil and they have all been promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) on 8.12.1989, 5.6.1991 and 5.9.1995 respectively and therefore, there is no promotion without qualification. It is also specifically denied that one V.Mohan with education qualification of Diploma in Civil Engineering was posted as Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical). It is specifically stated that the said individual was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) by transfer in the said ratio of 3:1 and therefore, the appointment was post-oriented and not person-oriented. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. While it was the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, by virtue of the impugned circular dated 28.8.2007, a discrimination is sought to be shown by specifically including the Cadre of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) or Junior Engineer (Mechanical) for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical), which was not the purport of the amendment made on 19.5.2006 and therefore, the entire act become violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it is the contention of Mr.S.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the first respondent that the writ petitions, on the face of it, are not maintainable and are vexatious. It is his submission that merely because in the amendment it is not specifically stated in the qualification and method of selection column about the Degree with Branch, viz., either Civil or Mechanical or Electrical, it does not mean that when a vacancy in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical) arises, a person holding the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) or Junior Engineer (Civil) can be posted. The stream of studies in the three branches are entirely distinct and different and one cannot be qualified for the other. 10. Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, who has been impleaded, while adopting the arguments of the first respondent/University would also submit that literally, the meaning of the word qualification and method of selection wherein B.E. Degree or Diploma in Engineering is mentioned should be read as B.E. Degree in a particular branch either Civil or Mechanical or Electrical, in which the vacancies arise, and no other foreign meaning can be imputed as per the latin maxim reddendo singula singulis. 11. After hearing the arguments of the respective counsel and on referring to the various documents, it is clear that before the amendment was brought in by the respondent/University and its Board of Management, namely before 19.5.2006, the post of Assistant Executive Engineer Civil or Mechanical or Electrical has been filled up only by way of promotion among the B.E. Degree holders having five years of experience as Assistant Engineer or Junior Engineer. It is only for the purpose of enabling the Junior Engineers with Diploma in Engineering like that of the petitioners, who have been working for many years in the respondent/University, to have a chance of being promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer Civil or Mechanical or Electrical, the University passed an amendment by giving a chance to the Diploma holders along with the Degree holders holding the post of Assistant Engineer and that was in the ratio of 3:1, by which three posts are given to the Assistant Engineers with B.E. Degree with five years of experience in the post of Assistant Engineer and one post was given to Junior Engineers with Diploma in Engineering with not less than 10 years of experience as Junior Engineer. The amendment, which has been brought out by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ University under S.No.40, Appendix-1B of the Regulations, is as follows: Sl. No. Name of the posts and scales of pay Qualification Method of Selection 40 Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil/ Mechanical/ Electrical) Rs.8000-275- 13500 1. By Promotion: i) B.E. or equivalent examination approved by any University ii) 5 years of experience in the cadre of the post of Assistant Engineer. 2. By Recruitment by transfer: Diploma in Engineering with not less than 10 years of service in the post of Junior Engineer. By promotion from among the post of Assistant Engineer/ Recruitment by transfer from among the post of Junior Engineer in the ratio of 3:1 12. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil or Mechanical or Electrical), which are certainly distinct and different in nature, while stipulating qualification either by promotion or recruitment by transfer, the amendment has not stated B.E. Degree in a particular subject, either Civil or Mechanical or Electrical, or the Diploma in Engineering in Civil or Mechanical or Electrical and therefore, it should be taken that either by promotion or recruitment by transfer if a post of Assistant Executive Engineer is to be filled up, whatever may be the branch either Civil or Mechanical or Electrical, any person having B.E. Degree or Diploma in Engineering in any branch will be entitled to such promotion. The said submission is purely a fallacy, which cannot be accepted by any stretch of imagination. When, admittedly, in the Engineering Courses, Civil or Mechanical or Electrical are distinct branches, one cannot say that simply because a person has a qualification of B.E (Civil), he will be entitled to act as an Engineer in Mechanical field or Electrical field also. 13. When once the Engineering Courses are conducted branch wise, which are distinct in character, and not a general Degree, like that of B.L. Degree, it is not open to the petitioners to assume that any Engineering Graduate in any branch will be able to work as an Engineer in any branch. That can never be the purport. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ This is a common knowledge that a Civil Engineer with Degree in Civil Engineering cannot act as a Mechanical Engineer at all. Therefore, merely because the amendment has not chosen to state specifically, while mentioning about the B.E. Degree or Diploma in Engineering, Civil or Mechanical or Electrical, it does not mean that Engineering graduate or Diploma in Engineering holders of any branch can act as Engineer in any branch. 14. In this regard, as submitted by Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, by applying the maxim reddendo singula singulis, the meaning of the word qualification and method of selection, wherein B.E. Degree or Diploma in Engineering is mentioned should be read as B.E. Degree in a particular branch either Civil or Mechanical or Electrical, in which the vacancies arise. Importing of a different meaning would be totally opposed to the principles of different branches in Engineering and that may lead to a situation where a B.E. Degree holder in Civil Engineering may be entitled to work as an Engineer in Mechanical side or a B.E. Degree holder in Mechanical may be eligible to work as an Engineer in Electrical side, which can never be possible as B.E. Degree is not given as a general degree by any University. That may be possible in respect of the Arts Course or B.L. Course, where there may not be any specialization. 15. In such view of the matter, simply because in the amendment which has been brought out by the University a specific branch has not been mentioned it can never be construed to mean anything. 16. In the circular issued by the University dated 28.8.2007, the University has only proposed to draw a panel of promotion in respect of only Mechanical Engineers and it was for that purpose they have asked for qualified personnel from Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) with B.E. Degree with five years of experience and Junior Engineers (Mechanical) with Diploma in Engineering with not less than ten years of service. Inasmuch as it is clear from the version of the University that the panel of Assistant Executive Engineer has been prepared separately for Mechanical, Civil and Electrical, it cannot be said that any person of any branch in the cadre of Assistant Engineer or Junior Engineer can be made eligible for the promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical). In my considered opinion, as the appointment is post-oriented and not person-oriented, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned circular is illegal. For the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation to conclude that the writ petitions are vexatious and are liable to be dismissed. These writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioners in these writ petitions shall pay cost of Rs.5000/- each https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the Chief Justice Relief Fund within a period of ten days. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 and 2 of 2008 in W.P.No.29124 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 and 2 of 2008 in W.P.No.29326 of 2007 are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sasi To: 1. The Vice Chancellor Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Madhavaram Milk Colony Chennai-51. 2. The Registrar Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Madhavaram Milk Colony Chennai-51. 3. The Estate Officer Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Madhavaram Milk Colony Chennai-51. 4.The Officer Incharge, Chief Justice Relief Fund, High Court, Madras. +2ccs to Mr.R.Ravi,Advocate Sr18308 +1cc to Mr.R.Amizhdu, Advocate Sr 18508 +2ccs to Mr.S.Vijayakumar, Advocate Sr 18351,18352 +1cc to Mr.PV.Rangaraajan,Advocate Sr 18420 SSN(CO) km/29.4. W.P.Nos.29124 and 29326 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/