HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO. 8219 OF 2010 Wednesday, the Twenty Fifth day of August, Two Thousand and Ten Between K. Venugopal and another Petitioners AND Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Rep. By the Executive Officer, Tirupathi and 30 others. Respondents ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the proceedings Roc. No.TL 1/10990/2009 dated 17.1.2010 issued by the respondent Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (TTD). Under the impugned proceedings, the TTD had altered the ratio for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer (Civil) from among the Graduate and Diploma Engineers in the category of Assistant Engineers from 2:2 to 3:1. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that absolutely there is no basis for altering the ratio from 2:2 to 3:1 for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer from the category of Assistant Engineers who are holding Engineering Degree and Diplomas respectively. The TTD had not made any Rules. It had simply adopted the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Services Rules, 1967 as amended from time to time. The Rules made by the State of Andhra Pradesh were made applicable to the TTD under GO Ms. No. 1060 Revenue (Endowments.I) Department dated 24.10.1989. In the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Services Rules, 1967, the procedure for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer and promotion to Deputy Executive Engineer were prescribed. For the purpose of considering the lis, it may be necessary to notice Group ‘A’ and ‘B’, of the Rules, which read as under: TABLE Group ‘A’ Asst. Executive Engineers of the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service and Addl. Asst. Engineers holding the Compressed Diploma Engineering qualification (DCE and DME) of the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Subordinate Service. Group ‘B’ Addl. Asst. Engineers, Draughtsmen, Special Grade and Draughtsmen, 1st Grade of the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Subordinate Service (GO Ms.No. 720 Irri. & Power (Ser.IV), Dt. 19.9.1977) Provided that if qualified and suitable candidates in any particular category in the cycle below are not available, the vacancy shall be filled from the qualified and suitable candidates available from the next category in the cycle, from which candidates are actually available and those vacancies which could not be filled in any category as per the cycle shall be treated as lapsed as far as that category is concerned; Provided further that among Addl. Asst. Engineers and Draughtsmen, Grade I or Special Grade, if qualified and suitable candidates are not available, the vacancy shall be filled from the next available category among the Addl. Asst. Engineers or Daughtsmen in the cycle, from which candidates are actually available, but not from Asst. Executive Engineers; Provided also that out of every 18 vacancies of Deputy Executive Engineers to be filled by promotion from among Asst. Executive Engineers, the first two shall be filled by Asst. Executive Engineers and the third vacancy shall be filled by recruitment by transfer from among the Addl. Asst. Engineers holding the Compressed Engineering Diploma qualification i.e. (DCE and DME) and the said ratio will cease to operate after the Addl. Asst. Engineers holding Compressed Engineering Diploma qualification are exhausted and thereafter the third vacancy also be filled in by Asst. Executive Engineers. (GO Ms.No. 720 Irri. & Power (Ser.IV), Dt. 19.9.1977 & GO M.No. 33, I & P dt.18.1.1978) The appointments under this sub-rule shall be made in the order of rotation specified below in every cycle of 24 vacancies. 1. Asst. Executive Engineer; 2. Asst. Executive Engineer; 3. Addl. Asst. Engineer with Compressed Diploma qualification (DCE or DME) 4. Addl. Asst. Engineer with LCE or LME Diploma or equivalent qualifications; 5. Asst. Executive Engineer; 6. Asst. Executive Engineer; 7. Addl. Asst. Engineer with Compressed Diploma qualification (DCE or DME) 8. Addl. Asst. Engineer with LCE or LME Diploma or equivalent qualification; 9. Asst. Executive Engineer; 10. Asst. Executive Engineer; 11. Addl. Asst. Engineer with Compressed Diploma qualification (DCE or DME) 12. Addl. Asst. Engineer with L.S. Diploma of the College of Engineering, Guindy or U.S. Diploma of the College of Engineering, Hyderabad. 13. Asst. Executive Engineer; 14. Asst. Executive Engineer; 15. Addl. Asst. Engineer with Compressed Diploma qualification (DCE or DME) 16. Addl. Asst. Engineer LCE or LME Diploma or equivalent qualifications 17. Asst. Executive Engineer; 18. Asst. Executive Engineer; 19. Addl. Asst. Engineer with Compressed Diploma qualification (DCE or DME) 20. Draughtsmen First Grade/Special Grade with LCE or LME qualifications; 21. Asst. Executive Engineer; 22. Asst. Executive Engineer; 23. Addl. Asst. Engineer with Compressed Diploma qualification (DCE or DME) 24. Addl. Asst. Engineer with L.S. Gundy or U.S. of Osmania University, Hyderabad (GO Ms.No. 720 Irrigation & Power (Ser.IV), Dt. 19.9.1977 Learned counsel strenuously contended that in the said Rules of 1967, the ratio fixed shows that the first two vacancies shall be filled up by Asst. Executive Engineers holding graduation qualification and the third vacancy to be filled up by an Addl. Asst. Engineer, holding Compressed Engineering Diploma qualification i.e. (DCE or DME) and the fourth vacancy needs to be filled up by Additional Assistant Engineer with LCE or LME or equivalent qualification. Thus the ratio between graduates and diploma holders was fixed at 2:2. By way of impugned order, the ratio has been altered from 2:2 to 3:1 i.e. the first three posts to be filled by the Assistant Engineer with Graduation qualification and the fourth vacancy with the Addl. Assistant Engineer with Diploma qualification. There was no amendment made to the Rules. Therefore, the question of altering the ratio from 2:2 to 3:1 does not arise. Learned counsel also placed heavy reliance on Groups ‘A’ and ‘B’, as noticed above to show that even if the Additional Assistant Engineer or Assistant Engineer with Compressed Engineering Diploma qualification are not available, the vacancy must go to Group ‘B’ Additional Assistant Engineer and not to Assistant Executive Engineer. The bracketed portion immediately after the proviso shows GO Ms. No. 720 Irrigation & Power dated 19.9.1977 as is noticed under Group ‘B’ which makes its clear that the bracketed portion was also taken into consideration by the TTD while adopting the Rules in 1989. Therefore, it would not have abruptly altered the ratio, as it likes by considering the representations made by the Associations by taking irrelevant factors into account. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents Sri D.Prakash Reddy, drawn attention of the court to the third proviso to the Rule above and stated that the very Rule itself is clear to show that out of every 18 Deputy Executive Engineers to be filled up by promotion from among the Assistant Executive Engineers, first two shall be filled up by the Assistant Executive Engineers and the third vacancy shall be filled by recruitment by transfer from among the Additional Assistant Engineers holding Compressed Engineering Diploma qualification ( DCE & DME) and the said ratio ceases to operate after the Additional Assistant Engineers holding the Compressed Engineering Diploma qualifications were exhausted and thereafter the third vacancy also to be filled by the Assistant Executive Engineers. Therefore, from the Rule itself, it is clear that if there are no persons appointed as Additional Assistant Engineer/ Assistant Engineer with the qualifications of Compressed Engineering Diploma the ratio to be followed is 3:1. Therefore, insofar as the TTD is concerned, the ratio, necessarily has to be adopted at 3:1 from the beginning as no person with Compressed Engineering Diploma were ever recruited. Further this position has been examined by this court in W.P. No. 3270 and 3581 of 1991 dated 31.3.1995 whereunder, it was held as follows: “…The question, therefore, is whether fixing of ratio in promotions between these two categories from 3:1 by the Government in terms of GO Ms. No. 1060 Revenue (Endowments.I) dated 24.10.1989 is proper or not? The Supreme Court in P.Murugesan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu(1) 1993 (2) SCC page 340 and in T.R. Kothanadaraman Vs. Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage Board (2) (1994) 6 SCC page 282, has considered these aspects at length and held that the promotions to the post of higher categories between the degree holders and diploma holders shall be at the ratio of 3:1. Having regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court cited supra, I hold that issuance of GO Ms. No. 1060 dated 24.10.1989 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh is proper. Writ Petition No. 3270/91 filed by the Assistant Engineer (Diploma Holders) Association assailing the legality of G.O.Ms. No.1060 dated 24.10.1989 fails in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard and accordingly, the same is dismissed, but without costs. Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3581 of 1991 have assailed the resolution No. 1042 dated 27.2.1991 proposing to bring down the ratio for promotion in these two categories from 3:1 to 1:1. In view of the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 3270/1991, holding that the decision of the Government in fixing the ratio of promotions between these two categories at 3:1 is proper, it is not necessary to declare the resolution dated 27.2.1991 of the Tirumula Tirupathi Devasthanam as illegal. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 3581 of 1991 is treated as closed. Sri Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner – Association in Writ Petition No. 3270/1991 states that on the basis of the representation made by the Assistant Engineers (Diploma holders) to the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams pursuing the Government for brining down the ratio as fixed by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 1060 dated 24.10.1989 from 3:1 to 1:1 among the categories of Assistant Executive Engineers and Assistant Engineers, has sent a proposal vide Proceedings TL1/404065/90 dated 13.9.1991 and contends that the government may be directed to reconsider the representation sent by the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams on 13.9.1991 on behalf of the petitioner Association. Having regard to the submissions, the first respondent in Writ Petition No. 3270/1991 is directed to examine the representation made by the Triumala Tirupathi Devasthanams on behalf of the Assistant Engineers (Diploma Holders) Association, dated 13.9.1991 and pass appropriate orders in this regard. While doing so, the first respondent shall also hear the Assistant Executive Engineers (Degree Holders) if necessary, before passing a final order…” The further contention of the petitioners that some irrelevant things were taken into consideration by the respondents in issuing the impugned order does not arise. There is no other Rule, Circular or executive instructions need to be depended upon, in view of the fact that the very proviso makes the position clear. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material placed on record. At the outset, it is to be noted that right from the beginning, in the TTD no persons with the qualification of “Compressed Engineering Diploma” were recruited as Assistant Engineers or Additional Engineers. Therefore, in the TTD, as is noticed in the proviso to the Rule that the ratio of 2:1:1 will cease to operate after the Additional Assistant Engineer holding Compressed Engineering Diploma qualifications were exhausted and the question of exhausting such Compressed Engineering Diploma holders in TTD Engineering Services does not arise, since no such person was recruited. Therefore, as is decided in the above judgment and also a plain reading of the proviso as noticed above, would indicate that fixing of the ratio 3:1 i.e. between the Graduates and Diploma holders cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. The contention of the learned counsel that the bracketed portion was also adopted by the TTD (since GO Ms. No.720 Irrigation and Power (Ser.IV) dated 19.9.1977 indicated below the proviso as well as Group ‘B’ table), it must be deemed that the third vacancy should go to the Diploma holders, making the ratio 2:2. The said proposition set up by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be countenanced. A plain reading would show that as soon as the cadre of Additional Assistant Engineers holding Compressed Engineering Diploma qualification are exhausted, the ratio will cease to operate and the third vacancy also will be filled up by the Assistant Executive Engineer holding Graduation qualification. This makes clear that the ratio has to be maintained wherever the Additional Assistant Engineers holding Compressed Engineering Diploma qualifications are not available or recruited for the purpose of promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that the respondents have taken into consideration all irrelevant things for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the ratio between the Graduates and the Diploma holders be fixed at 3:1. The writ petition being devoid of merits does not call for any interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, into the impugned order passed by the respondents. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ Justice C.V. Ramulu August 25, 2010 MAS