These seven appeals by special leave have been filed against the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court.
This respondent respectfully submits that the Tamilnadu Housing Board in its resolution No.
should be substituted by the words Five Years.
772 dated 20.3.1963 approved the draft service regulations in regard to the companyditions of service of the officers and Servants of the Board.
This was approved by the Board in resolution No.
This letter was however omitted at the time of issue of orders by Government in G.o.
60880/FT2/69 date 5.7.72 TO The Secretary to Government, Labour Department, Madras 9.
There is one other plea urged on behalf of the Board to which reference has to be made at this stage before dealing with the companytentions urged before us and that plea is companytained in paragraph 3 of the companynter affidavit filed by Shri K, Lakshminathan Bharathi, Chairman of the Board, which was sworn on 17.12.1973.
In resolution No.
188884/E/63 I dated 7.6.63 requested the approval of the Government for the regulations framed by the Board with reference to sections 17 and 19 of the Tamilnadu State Housing Board Act 1961.
The impugned promotions have been made between 25.6.1971 and 7.2.1972.
No further steps in this regard appear to have been taken after the said letter was written by the State Government perhaps because the writ petitions out of which these appeals arise had been pending before the High Court.
At the time of approval by the Government in G. O .
sd/ K. Krishnan for Deputy Secretary to Government.
156 Housing Department of Labour dated 14.5.1969.
467 dated 8.11.1965 approved an amendment prescribing a period of five years as Junior Engineer for promotion as Assistant Engineer instead of three years.
45 promotions were given to the Junior Engineers and Super visors by relaxing their required period of service.
I am to request you to clarify the above points.
45 dated 20.1.1972.
But the Government issued a memorandum dated 26.2.1971 which was styled as an erratum and it said that the words Three Years occurring under the sub head by promotion of i Junior Engineer?
While the matter was under companysideration of the Government the Tamilnadu Housing Board in its resolution No.
The Government companysidered the regulations submitted by the Board and gave its approval by .
1971 which had been issued as an erratum was liable to be ignored since it had number been issued by following the procedure prescribed for modifying a regulation.
On that sole ground, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside and the writ petitions were dismissed.
2 in the writ petitions The writ petitions were opposed by the Board and the Junior Engineers who had been impleaded as respondents in the said writ petitions.
The said letter reads as follows No.
From the Judgment and order dated 25.11 1974 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.
The answer to this question P depends upon the fact whether the memorandum dated 26.2.1971 issued by the State Government stating that the period of qualifying service in respect of Junior Engineers was five years and number three years was an erratum or was a modification of the earlier Government order dated 14.5.1969.
In regard to the appointment of Assistant Engineer the revised draft service regulations provided a period of three years of service as Junior Engineer instead of five years vide page 409 to 410 of the G.O. While these revised draft regulation were pending scrutiny by the Government the Tamil nadu Housing Board in its resolution No.
Your letter No.
From the Judgment and order dated 25.11.1974 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No 238 of 1974.
175, 228, 229, 238, 263 and 265 of 1974 S. Krishnamurthy and Ambrish Kumar for the Appellants in C.A. No.
For the appointment as Assistant Engineer one of the qualifications proposed by the Housing Board included a service of five years in the State Housing Board, Public Works Department, or Highways in case of directly recruited Junior Engineers.
I am directed to invite a reference to your letter cited wherein it is stated that the period of qualifying service for promotion as Assistant Engineer from the category of Junior Engineer has been reduced to three years by the Board in resolution No.
156 Labour dated 14.5.69.
When the matter was still pending with the Government, the Board by its Resolution No.
The Board, however, raised some inconsistent pleas with regard to the said erratum.
Under the above letter the State Government sought certain clarifications on points raised in it.
It is necessary at this stage to set out briefly the relevant provisions of law and the companytentions urged by the parties.
60880/ET2/69 dated 7 3 74.
After the State Government was so impleaded an affidavit was filed on behalf of the State Government by Shri V.S. Subbiah, Secretary to Government Housing Department explaining reasons for issuing the erratum dated 26.2.
175, 228, 229, 238 and 263 265 of 1974 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The resolution approving the above numbere was passed by the Board in the light of regulation 28 d of the Regulations which has been set out above.
60880/FT2/69 dated 5.7.72.
K. Srivastava, R. Mohan, K Shivraj Chowdhary and A V Rangam for the Respondents in A Nos.
467 dated 8.11.1965 has proposed a period of 5 years as the minimum qualification required for promotion as Assistant Engineers in the case of directly recruited Junior Engineers.
545 of 1975.
2 to 11 in C.A No.
637 642 of 1975.
I am to enclose a companyy of the Note for the Board together with the Boards resolution No.
This resolution was forwarded by the Chair man, Tamilnadu Housing Board in his letter No.
637 42 of 1975.
On 5th July, 1972 a letter was addressed by the Board to the State Government which reads thus Lr.
The writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge on January 13, 1974.
Thereafter the Board wrote a letter to the State Government on the question of relaxation of the rules on March 7, 1974.
Further the Board has approved a proposal to amend the service regulations to provide for promotion of Assistant Engineers in the proportion of 3 I where as in the letter cited it is requested that the service regulations may be amended to reduce the qualifying service of Junior Engineers for promotion to three years.
By that revision, the Board altered the period of five years of service which had been prescribed as the qualifying service in the case of Junior Engineers to three years and forwarded the said resolution to the Government.
45 dated 20.1.72 on the subject.
This memorandum was signed by an Assistant Secretary to the Government.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Board was established under the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act The posts of Assistant Engineers number called as Assistant Executive Engineers in the Engineering officers Service of the Board were to be filled up either by direct recruitment or by promotion from the cadre of Junior Engineers possessing the qualifications prescribed for a Junior Engineers or from the cadres of Supervisors, Head Draftsmen and Draftsmen Grade l According to the appellants the regulations framed by the Board which had received the approval of the State Government prescribed that in order to be eligible to be promoted to the cadre of Assistant Engineers a Junior Engineer should have put in service as Junior Engineer for number less than five years and that a Supervisor should have put in service as Supervisor for number less than ten years.
2 in the writ petitions, who were working as Junior Engineers had been promoted to the A cadre of Assistant Engineers even though they had number put in five years of service in the cadre of Junior Engineers companytrary to the regulations of the Board and that the appellants and some other Supervisors who were eligible to be promoted as Assistant Engineers, had number been promoted to the cadre of Assistant Engineers.
They, therefore, approached the High Court by filing the above mentioned petitions for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Board to companysider the claims of the appellants and other Supervisors who were eligible to be promoted to the 11 posts of Assistant Engineers in the place of Respondents 2 to 11 and C.J. Jayachandran who had been impleaded as Respondent No.
With Civil Appeal Nos.
It is at the stage the learned Single Judge directed the State Government to be impleaded as a party in order to ascertain whether the Memorandum dated 26.2.1971 was only an erratum which had been issued for the purpose of companyrecting a clerical mistake which had crept into the Government order dated 14.5.1969 or whether it was in fact a modification of the earlier Government order dated 14.5.1969.
45 dated 20 1 72.
Ms. No.
368 dated 8.12.1964 approved the revised draft service regulations.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The above appeals arise out of three petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India bearing Writ Petition Nos 1367, 1389 and 1448 of 1973 on the file of the High Court of Madras The appellant V Balasubramaniam was the petitioner in Writ Petition No.
The resolution relaxing the qualification was passed by the Board on 20th of January, 1972.
When this omission was numbericed by Government this was rectified by issuing an erratum in Memorandum No.
The Chairman of the Tamilnadu Housing Board in his letter No.
These appeals, as already stated, have been filed against the judgment of the Division Bench.
It was the companytention of the Junior Engineers who had been promoted as the Assistant Engineers that the qualification prescribed by the regulations in respect of Junior Engineers for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Engineers was three years service as stated in the order of the Government dated 14.5.1969 and that the memorandum dated 26.2.
The relevant part of that affidavit reads thus The Tamilnadu Housing Board in its resolution No.
545 of 1975.
The appellants and the two other petitioners in the writ petitions clearly stated in the companyrse of the writ petitions that the relaxation made in favour of the Junior Engineers who had been promoted was number in accordance with regulations 28 d since even though more than nine months had elapsed after the resolution relaxing the qualifications was passed, the approval of the Government had number been accorded to the resolution A relaxing the qualification.
The grievance of the appellants and other Supervisors was that Respondents 2 to 11 in these appeals who were Respondents 3 to 12 in the writ petitions and one C.J. Jayachandran, who had been impleaded as Respondent No.
Ref Board Resolution No.
1389 of 1973 and S. Swaminathan and S Suruli were the petitioners in the other two writ petitions All of them were working as Supervisors in the Engineering Subordinate Service of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board hereinafter referred to as the Board .
Regulation 28 d of the Regulations provided that it was open to the Board in appropriate cases to relax the qualifications subject to the approval of the State Government.
97205A/ E2/64 9 dated 16.11.1965.
467 dated 8.11.1965 went back on its revision and again prescribed the qualifying service of five years in respect of Junior Engineers for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Engineers since according to the Board that would be in accordance with the rules governing the Madras Engineering Service in the Government.
Padmanabham, Sunder and Ambrish Kumar for the Appellants in C.A. Nos.
The regulations, as approved by the Government in the Government order, however, showed only three years as the qualifying service in respect of Junior Engineers and number five years as the qualifying service.
637 642 of 1975.
45 dated 20.1.1972.
The State Government was impleaded as a respondent to the writ petitions by the learned Single Judge who heard the writ petitions After hearing all the parties, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions by his companymon judgment delivered on 30.1.1974 declaring that the promotion of Respondents 2 to 11 and C.J. Jayachandran as Assistant Engineers was in violation of the requirements of the regulations and directed the Board to fill up the posts to which Respondents 2 to 11 and C.J. Jayachandran had been promoted according to the regulations Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge the Board and the Junior Engineers whose promotions had been set aside by the learned Single Judge preferred in all seven appeals being Writ Appeal Nos.
545 of 1975.
This difference between the Junior Engineers and the Supervisors was due to the minimum educational qualifications prescribed for entry into those posts.
A degree in Engineering or an equivalent qualification had been prescribed for entry into the cadre of Junior Engineers and a diploma in Engineering or any equivalent qualification was the minimum qualification prescribed for entry into the cadre of Supervisors.
Rajindera Choudhary, A.K Srivastava, K. Shivraj Choudhary and K. Ram Kumar for the Respondent Nos.
