Summary
The Court set aside a direction to appoint a municipal Revenue Assistant as Town Planning Inspector merely because she held a civil-engineering diploma. Recruitment rules permitted direct recruitment or promotion from Town Planning Assistant Draughtsman, and she was outside that feeder cadre. An allegedly similar appointment elsewhere created no right to repeat illegality. The employee was ordered to pay Rs.20,000 costs for the untenable proceedings.
Issues
- Whether educational qualification alone entitled an employee outside the prescribed feeder cadre to appointment as Town Planning Inspector.
- Whether an allegedly similar appointment in another municipality supported a claim of parity.
Held
- Possessing the educational qualification did not itself confer entitlement to a public post. Appointment had to follow the applicable recruitment law or rules, with eligible candidates afforded the required opportunity. (¶ 15)
- The Town Planning Service Rules governed the Inspector post. Revenue Assistant was not its promotional feeder cadre; the General Service Rules did not provide the claimed route, so the High Court could not direct the appointment. (¶ 16–18)
- An appointment elsewhere contrary to recruitment rules could not establish parity. Equality did not require repetition of an illegal or mistaken benefit. (¶ 19)
- The impugned judgment was set aside with Rs.20,000 costs, payable by the respondent to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority within three months. (¶ 20)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order dated 22 March 2017 set aside. Respondent to deposit Rs.20,000 costs with Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority within three months.