ORDER
M. Ramachandran, J. (Vice Chairman)
1. A Notification dated 26.10.2004 whereby an amendment had been brought to the Recruitment Rules of the Irrigation and Flood Control Department, in so far as it relates to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), is under challenge. The applicants respectively are Draftsman Grade-III and Draftsman Grade-II working in the Department. Persons in the category of applicants could not have aspired for promotion as Junior Engineers as the channel of promotion was different. But initially kindling their hopes, it appears, a proposal had been mooted at the instance of the Secretary as well as Chief Engineer of the Department whereby modification in the Recruitment Rules had been suggested, and if carried out, it would have been possible for Draftsman also to be considered for promotion as Junior Engineers. The applicants have given the details as following.
2. The earlier rules provided that 95% of the posts of Junior Engineer were to be filled by direct recruitment and 5% from departmental candidates. The proposal was to reduce the intake of direct recruitees to 84% and increase quota for the recruitment of Departmental Candidates to 16%. Of the recommended 16%, they were to be sub-divided so as to draw 12% from Works Assistants, 3% from Surveyors and 1% from Draftsman.
3. The first applicant is a Graduate and the second applicant a Diploma Holder. But when the amended rules came into existence, it has not come up to their expectations. Of course, direct recruitment was provided at 85% and the balance 15% were to be filled up by promotion viz 12% from Works Assistant and 3% from Surveyors. Draftsmen were not to be accommodated.
4. The relief prayed for is to quash the above said proceedings and further for directing the Department to bring in rules so as to ensure that claims of persons in the Draftsmen category also are included in the statutory rules. The scuttling of the earlier proposals, according to them, had been done at certain levels, as motivated, and, as a matter of fact, the rules as presently brought about were not in consonance with the Office Memorandum of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. Wherever a departure was to be brought about, the Ministries were expected to obtain concurrence from the nodal Departments and in so far as this procedure had not been duly followed, the applicants submit that the rules suffer from an indiscretion and lacuna. It also adversely affects the fundamental rights of the applicants as due promotion, taking notice of the qualification possessed by them, stand denied. Their legitimate expectations are also thwarted. The present rules had been challenged in OA 2626/2004 but that had been withdrawn, with leave so as to present a better application.
5. The learned senior counsel, Mr. G.D. Gupta, points out that the working of the Department is almost in similar lines with the CPWD-NDMC and Draftsman there had been given opportunity for expanding their careers and no reasons have been given at any time for overlooking the Draftsmen category, although the error had been noticed and remedial steps were in progress. Even on earlier occasions, when acting arrangements were resorted, the Draftsman were overlooked and unqualified persons had been preferred, which was not in the interest of the Department.
6. Counsel has adverted to some factual details, to show the nature and functions of the Department and has also heavily relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1991 SCR 297. The judgment, according to the applicants, is an authority for the proposition that when there is inherent defect shown to the rules framed, especially perpetrating discrimination and obliterating promotional opportunities, it will be within the jurisdiction of the courts to issue appropriate directions to the Administration to amend the rules to make it more just and equitable.
7. By way of the counter affidavit, claims have been refuted. It is submitted that the applicants have no grievance to be urged by way of an Original Application. Even though the general pattern of the Department is in line with that followed by the CPWD, it may not be essential that in minute details as well, the rules are to be in conformity with that which operates in other Departments. There was paucity of hands in the cadre of Draftsman and it could not have been possible to off take them to other areas or open for further avenues for promotions than that was existing. It is not as if there are no promotional opportunities available to them. Although there was a proposal at some point of time to include the category, as feeder posts to JE, for reasons, which are relevant, proposal had been dropped and the present amendments had been brought into the rules, in public interest.
8. It is further submitted that the decision cited by the Supreme Court has no relevance, as it is not a case where the applicants have no scope for promotions. The fact that they were qualified, did not by itself mean that they could as of right pressurize the Government for amendment of the rules enabling them to get more pastures than that was there at the time of their induction.
9. Even if we may hold that sufficient reasons are not shown by the Department, for omitting to add on the category of Draftsman as feeder category for the posts of Junior Engineer, normally it will not be within the purview of our jurisdiction to tinker with the rules, as introduced in the year 2004. Perhaps, there was a view from some quarter that induction of qualified Draftsman to the post of Junior Engineers by way of promotion might be healthy, but ultimately when the Department had taken a view, that it may not be workable, it is best assumed that such decision had been arrived at, in public interest. The court is not normally expected to give directions for formulating rules as expert bodies who have specialized knowledge are the best persons, to deal with such matters in the larger interest of the administration. Mr. Gupta submitted that Surveyors who were certificate holders alone had been included in the feeder category for promotion as JE. But even the past rules contained such a provision. The wisdom of such a provision has to be in the domain of the Department alone
10. We, therefore, do not find it justifiable on our part to grant the reliefs prayed for. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of the Original Application by itself may not be any reason for closing the Chapter altogether as promotional avenues should be unrestricted for qualified departmental hands in good administration. O.A. is dismissed. No costs.