IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 24..3..2008 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice P.K. MISRA and The Honourable Mr.Justice K.CHANDRU W. P. No. 14949 of 2002 The Tamil Nadu Diploma Engineers Association Department of Employment and Training Rep. by its General Secretary ... Petitioner -vs- 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Commissioner and Secretary Employment Service Department Chennai - 9 2. The Director of Employment and Training Madras 3. The Tamil Nadu Industrial Training Officials Association Madras Rep. by its General Secretary 4. The Registrar Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal Chennai 5. G. Mani 6. P. Balakrishnan 7. K. Deivasubramanian 8. S. Sabapathy 9. E.S. Mani 10. P.C. Karthikeyan 11. R. Sivasankaran Pillai 12. R. Rajendran 13. A.M. Subramanian 14. G. Sivasubramanian .. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the fourth respondent pertaining to his order in T.A. No. 930 of 1989 darted 01.02.2002 and quash the same and declare the amendments issued by the first respondent in G.O. Ms. No. 49 Employment services dated 26.9.1983 to Category I sub clause (ii) in sub-rule (b) of Rule 5 of the Special Rules and Tamil Nadu Employment and Training Subordinate Service 1972 introducing for the first time a ratio system of 1:1:1 between Degree and Diploma holders in Engineering(2) SSlC with a Trade certificate and (3) 8th Standard with a trade certificate and reducing the academic and technical qualifications from (1) a degreein Engineering (2) a diploma in Engineering and two years experience as supervisory instructor / Assistant training officers to 8th standard or SSLC with trade certificate to the post of Foreman Instructors / Training officers in Tamil Nadu Employment and training subordinate service is null and void and direct the respondents to forthwith the appointments of Foreman Instructor / Training Officer in the said service according to original Special Rules. For Petitioner : Mr. R. Ramesh For Respondents 1-3 : Mr. M. Dhandapani, Spl. GP ORDER
K. CHANDRU, J.
Heard the arguments of Mr. R. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader representing the respondents 1 to 3 and have perused the records.
2. The petitioner is an unregistered association of Diploma Engineers working under the second respondent. After obtaining leave from this Court vide order dated 25.4.2002 granted in W.P.M.P. 19151 of 2002, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Some Diploma Engineers, who were working under the second respondent in their individual capacity, filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. No. 11364 of 1983 seeking for a direction declaring the amendments made by the first respondent State to the Special Rules relating to Tamil Nadu Employment and Training Service issued vide G.O. Ms. No.49 Employment Service Department dated 26.9.1983 and by the introduction of ratio of 1:1:1 among the Degree and Diploma holders in Engineering, S.S.L.C. with Trade Certificate holders and 8th Standard with Trade Certificate for the purpose of recruiting to the post of Foreman Instructor / Training Officer as unconstitutional. On the constitution of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, during December 1988, the said writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal by virtue of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985 and was taken on file as T.A. No. 930 of 1989.
4. A reply affidavit was filed on behalf of the first respondent stating that the policy decision was taken in the National Council for Training in Vocational Trade so as to promote Trade Certificate holders also to the level of Group Instructors, which was afterwards, redesignated as Training Officers. The Association of the Certificate holders also was making persistent demand for granting promotional avenues. In fact, the said Association got itself impleaded as the third respondent. It was further stated by the official respondents before the Tribunal that it was well within the competence of the Government being the appointing authority to prescribe appropriate qualifications including for promotional avenues taking into account the interest of various categories of staff. It was stated that lowering of the qualifications for the promotional post can be done without affecting the Training programme and it was done to help many of the employees who may not get any promotion during their entire tenure.
5. It was also stated that the promotion to the post of Training Officer is a selection post as per the Special Rules and there was no hostile discrimination made against the Degree or Diploma holders in Engineering and only with a view to give a fair share of the promotional post, the ratio of 1:1:1 was fixed. It was also contended that the petitioners before the Tribunal cannot deprive the promotional avenues given to the Trade Certificate holders.
6. The matter was dealt with by the Tribunal and the Tribunal heard the matter along with T.A. No. 930 of 1989 and passed a common order dated 01.02.2002. The Tribunal held that there was nothing illegal or improper in fixing the ratio between various feeder categories for the promotion and it does not offend any constitutional provisions. None of the petitioners before the Tribunal had come before this Court against the said order. On the contrary, an unregistered association claiming to represent their interest, after taking leave from this Court, has filed the present writ petition. The maintainability of the writ petition at their instance is highly doubtful in the light of the decisions rendered by this Court including a Full Bench (See: AIR 1989 MADRAS 224 FB).
7. In any event, the main contention of the petitioner Association placing reliance upon the earlier order dated 26.8.1983 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 3610 and 5240 of 1982 [K. Jawaharlal and 17 others v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others] may not have relevance. In that case, the order issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 2102 (Labour and Employment Department) dated 22.9.1981 came to be challenged. It was stated that since Special Rules were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, the Government cannot amend the same by an executive order and it was clearly impermissible. So saying, in the operative portion of the order, learned single Judge had observed as follows:
“…. In the circumstances, so long as the qualifications for appointment as Foreman Instructor prescribed under the Special Rules stand unamended it will certainly not be open to the Government to modify the rules by the impugned G.O. The learned Government Advocate was not in a position to cite any binding precedent before me or any provision of law which would justify the action of the Government in modifying the rules framed under Art.309 of the Constitution of India, by an executive order.”
8. In fact, there is no quarrel over the proposition laid in that case. It is only taking note of the said judgment, the Special Rules have been amended to include an additional feeder category. In order to have an equitable distribution, a ratio was also fixed among the various feeder categories. It was these statutory amendments made under Art. 309 of the Constitution which have been challenged once again.
9. It has been held by the Courts that mere reduction in the chances of promotion for a category will not be hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution. It has also been further held that the Rules framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution cannot be dealt with like an executive order as it is legislative in character. It has also been made clear by the Supreme Court in Bandlal v. Union
of India AIR 1993 SC 978 that the Rule made in exercise of the power under Proviso to the Article 309 of the Constitution of India, constitute a law within the meaning of the Article 235 of the Constitution, for the same reasons the Rule may be struck down only on such grounds as may be invalidated or legislative measure, e.g., violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and not because the Court consider it unreasonable.
10. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in J. Rangasamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1990 SC 535 : (1990) 1 SCC 288 : 1990-I-LLJ-526 that it is for the competent authority to prescribe relevant qualifications for the appointment to the post provided they are not unconstitutional. It is not for the Court to consider and assess and it is for persons aggrieved to move the appropriate authority.
11. In the light of the above, we have no hesitation in dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner and affirming the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
gri
To
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by Commissioner and Secretary
Employment Service Department
Chennai – 9
2. The Director of Employment and Training
Madras