Summary
The Court declined to disturb long-standing Technical Assistant appointments as Assistant Engineers within the subordinate-service transfer quota, relying on earlier litigation, regularisation records and absence of encroachment on the direct-recruit quota. Wider statutory-rule arguments were not decided. The principal appeals were dismissed. Four distinct appeals were allowed by agreement because their writ petitions had been decided without addressing facts or rival submissions, and those matters were remitted for fresh consideration.
Issues
- Whether the settled Technical Assistant appointments warranted interference in the principal appeals.
- Whether the appointments encroached on direct-recruit posts or remained unregularised.
- Whether the separately grouped writ decisions required remand for want of consideration.
Provisions considered
- G.O. Ms. No.1 of 1990 and G.O. Ms. No.155 of 2015, clause 4, Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Works DepartmentEarlier approval of the appointment arrangement and the later relaxation/regularisation order informed refusal to unsettle the appointments on this record. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaThe Court declined discretionary interference with the settled appointments and separate quotas while leaving broader service-rule issues unnecessary to decide. (¶¶ 14, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
Held
- The Court expressly found it unnecessary to resolve the wider service-rule issues. Earlier litigation had approved the relevant Government Order, including its transfer arrangement for qualified personnel, and the earlier appeal had been dismissed. Those circumstances supported the result without a general ruling that executive orders may override statutory recruitment rules. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- The disputed appointments were within the 25% subordinate-service transfer allocation and did not encroach upon the 75% direct-recruit allocation. B. Thirumal concerned a distinct claim to compete across quotas and did not require invalidating these appointments; separate promotional shares also protected the competing groups. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- The contention that the Technical Assistants’ services remained unregularised was contradicted by the 2015 relaxation/regularisation order and the State’s affidavit. Vacancies in the transfer quota had remained unfilled for want of eligible candidates, prompting the appointments. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25)
- Interference would unsettle a position prevailing for approximately eighteen years without intrusion into the appellants’ quota. Equity and the discretionary nature of Article 136 justified dismissal of Civil Appeals 4886–4889, 4892 and 5748–5750 of 2023. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29)
- Civil Appeals 4372, 4890, 4891 and 5747 of 2023 had a different outcome. By the parties’ agreement, the impugned decisions in Writ Petitions 3617/2017 and 35161/2019 were set aside because facts and rival submissions had not been considered, and those matters remanded for fresh lawful determination without costs. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32)
Result
Principal appeal group dismissed; Civil Appeals 4372, 4890, 4891 and 5747/2023 allowed and the two specified writ matters remanded for fresh consideration. Pending applications disposed of; no costs in the remand group.