2026 INSC 446 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6883-6884 OF 2026

[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14666 – 14667 of 2025]

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

AND ANOTHER … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

R. SASIPRIYA AND ANOTHER … RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6885-6886 OF 2026

[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14726 – 14727 of 2025]

T. GNANAVEL … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

R. SASIPRIYA AND OTHERS … RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present two sets of appeals arise from the judgment and Order dated

23.07.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No. 996 of 2015, and the Order dated

2

04.10.2024 passed in Review Application No. 249 of 2024, by the High Court

of Judicature at Madras

1

, whereby the High Court allowed the writ appeal filed

by one R. Sasipriya and dismissed the review application filed by T. Gnanavel.

3. The aforesaid Writ Appeal bearing No. 996 of 2015 was directed against

the order dated 19.04.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.

No. 4704 of 2005, which challenged Government Order in G.O. (D) No. 19,

Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC IV) Department, dated

18.01.2005

2

, granting relaxation of the Service Rules in favour of T. Gnanavel,

thereby enabling him to be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer with

effect from 14.04.1997 notionally, with monetary benefits from 26.10.1998. A

consequential relief was also sought for a direction to the Commissioner,

Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, to implement the 3:1 ratio in the

matter of promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer and to promote

the writ petitioner (R. Sasipriya) to the said post in the Coimbatore Corporation.

4. By the impugned judgment dated 23.07.2024, the writ appeal was allowed

by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition,

as well as G.O. (D) No. 19 issued by the Government, and by directing the

authorities to scrutinise the files relating to the grant of relaxation of the Service

Rules and pass appropriate orders granting promotion and service benefits to all

the employees working in the Coimbatore Corporation. Challenging the same,

1

Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”

2

Hereinafter referred to as “G.O. (D) No. 19”

3

T. Gnanavel preferred Review Application No. 249 of 2024, which came to be

dismissed by the impugned Order dated 04.10.2024.

5. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment and orders are under challenge in the

present set of appeals, one by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Commissioner,

Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, and the other by T. Gnanavel.

6. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in

Civil Appeal Nos.6885-6886 of 2026 @ SLP (C) Nos. 14726 – 14727 of 2025,

wherein, T.Gnanavel is the appellant, R.Sasipriya is Respondent No. 1, and the

State of Tamil Nadu and the Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal

Corporation – appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.6883-6884 of 2026 @ SLP (C)

Nos. 14666 – 14667 of 2025 are Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

7. The necessary facts leading to the filing of the present sets of appeals are

as follows:

7.1. The appellant, T. Gnanavel was appointed as Fitter on 08.12.1988 in the

Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department through the

Employment Exchange. Respondent No. 1, R.Sasipriya, was temporarily

appointed as Town Planning Inspector in the Coimbatore City Municipal

Corporation on 02.08.1993, and her services were regularised vide Proceedings

in K. Dis. No. 94176/94/C23 dated 20.12.1994.

7.2. Pursuant to the order dated 04.03.1991 passed in W.P. No. 2857 of 1991,

the Government vide G.O. (D) No. 448 Municipal Administration and Water

Supply Department, dated 11.08.1995, considered the appeal petition of the

4

appellant and directed the Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, to relax the

provisions of Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Engineering and Water

Works Service Rules, 1970, relating to the method of appointment, in favour of

the appellant, as a special case so as to enable him to be appointed as Overseer /

Draughtsman in Coimbatore Corporation. Accordingly, vide proceedings in

R.C. No. 84714/95/G2 dated 18.10.1995, the Coimbatore Corporation promoted

the appellant as Overseer against the vacancy caused consequent upon the

promotion of one Lakshmanan. The appellant was promoted from the post of

Fitter to Overseer on 01.12.1995.

7.3. Thereafter, the Government vide G.O. (Ms.) No. 237 Municipal

Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 26.09.1996, framed new

service rules for Corporations other than Chennai Corporation whereby the

Engineering Department and the Town Planning Department were merged. Vide

proceedings dated 17.05.1999, the Government clarified with respect to G.O.

No. 237 dated 26.09.1996 that the new Corporation Service Rules, 1996 need

not be applied to existing employees for the first promotion. It was further

clarified that, before applying 3:1 ratio under the new rules, existing

Draughtsmen who were fully qualified to hold the post of Junior Engineer

should first be promoted against vacancies arising immediately after issuance of

the new rules, and thereafter the ratio of 3:1 should be strictly followed.

5

7.4. On 11.04.1997, Respondent No. 1 was redesignated as Junior Engineer,

after merger of the services of Junior Engineers and Town Planning Inspectors,

and she joined duty on 14.04.1997.

7.5. The appellant was promoted as Junior Engineer vide proceedings dated

09.08.1999. Thereafter, vide proceedings in R.C.No. 20855/99/MC23 dated

02.12.1999, he was redesignated as Assistant Engineer on the basis of his B.E.

degree with effect from 12.08.1999 after getting clarification under proceedings

dated 17.05.1999.

7.6. In the meanwhile, the appellant filed W.P. No. 14813 of 2001, W.P. No.

18493 of 2001 and W.P. No. 21461 of 2003, which were disposed of on

10.09.2001, 08.10.2001, and 23.09.2003 respectively. Pursuant thereto, the

Coimbatore Corporation forwarded a proposal to the Government on the

appellant’s representation seeking appointment as Assistant Engineer.

Consequently, G.O. (D) No. 19 came to be issued promoting the appellant as

Assistant Engineer with effect from 14.04.1997 notionally, with monetary

benefits from the date of the resolution of the Appointment Committee i.e.,

26.10.1998, and placing him above the Town Planning Inspectors who were

redesignated as Junior Engineers / Assistant Engineers on 11.04.1997.

7.7. Challenging the said G.O. (D) No.19, Respondent No. 1 filed W.P. No.

4704 of 2005 seeking to quash the same and for a direction to implement the 3:1

ratio in the matter of promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the Coimbatore Corporation

6

regularised the services of the appellant as Assistant Engineer. On 04.07.2007,

the Corporation published the final seniority list, wherein the names of the

appellant and Respondent No. 1 were included.

7.8. Thereafter, G.O. No. 281 dated 26.07.2011 came to be issued promoting

the appellant and two others to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer by

relaxing Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Corporation Service Rules, 1996

insofar as one year’s experience was concerned. Accordingly, all three were

promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer with retrospective effect from

07.11.2007.

7.9. By order dated 19.04.2012, W.P. No. 4704 of 2005 was dismissed.

Challenging the same, Respondent No. 1 preferred W.A. No. 996 of 2015.

Thereafter, the appellant, Respondent No. 1 and one Parvathi were promoted as

Executive Engineers vide G.O.(2P) No. 4, Municipal Administration and Water

Supply (C.C) IV) Department dated 27.01.2016 by relaxing Rule 4 of the Tamil

Nadu Municipal Corporation Service Rules, 1996. After hearing the parties, the

Division Bench by judgment dated 23.07.2024, allowed the writ appeal by

setting aside the order dated 19.04.2012 passed in W.P. No. 4704 of 2005 and

G.O. (D) No. 19 issued by the Government. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant

filed Review Application No. 249 of 2024 seeking review of the judgment

passed in W.A. No. 996 of 2015 and restoration of G.O. (D) No. 19. However,

the said Review Application came to be dismissed. Hence, the present sets of

appeals before this court.

7

8. Learned senior counsel for the appellant in Civil Appeal Nos.6885-6886

of 2026 @ SLP (C) Nos. 14726–14727 of 2025 submitted that the appellant

possessed a Diploma in Civil Engineering and was initially appointed as Fitter

in the year 1988. He had made a representation seeking consideration for

appointment to the post of Overseer/ Draughtsman by relaxing the rule relating

to the method of appointment. Pursuant to the order of the High Court in W.P.

No. 2857 of 1991, his representation was considered and he was promoted to the

post of Overseer on 01.12.1995.

8.1. It was submitted that thereafter, G.O. Ms. No. 237 dated 26.09.1996 came

to be issued, whereby the Engineering Department was merged with the Town

Planning Department of the Corporation, and the same was never challenged by

Respondent No. 1. Subsequently, the appellant who had acquired a B.E. degree

(Civil) in the year 1996, had been discharging the duties of Junior Engineer and

continued to work in the said capacity without formal promotion or attendant

benefits. He, therefore, approached the High Court and obtained a direction to

the Government to consider his case for promotion to the post of Assistant

Engineer, pursuant to which, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer with effect

from 14.04.1997 notionally, with monetary benefits. In such circumstances,

Respondent No. 1 initiated writ proceedings challenging the said promotion, and

her claim came to be erroneously accepted by the Division Bench through the

impugned judgment.

8

8.2. It was further submitted that under the Tamil Nadu Municipal

Engineering Water Supply Service Rules, 1970, both the posts of Draughtsman

and Overseer are feeder categories to the post of Junior Engineer. The appellant

was appointed as Overseer on 01.12.1995. It was the policy decision of the

Government that when Town Planning Inspectors drawing the pay scale of

Rs.1350-2200, and not belonging to the feeder category for the post of Junior

Engineer / Assistant Engineer were granted the benefit of elevation as Junior

Engineer / Assistant Engineer consequent upon merger with the Engineering

Department, the Overseers / Draughtsmen, who were in the same pay scale and

constituted feeder categories, should also be extended the same benefit.

8.3. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the Government, after

careful consideration of the appellant’s representation and pursuant to the orders

passed by the High Court in W.P. Nos. 18493 of 2001 and 21461 of 2003,

considered the proposal of the Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal

Corporation based on the recommendations of the Commissioner of Municipal

Administration, and issued G.O. (D) No. 19, directing that the appellant be

promoted as Assistant Engineer with effect from 14.04.1997 i.e. the date on

which the Town Planning Department was merged with the Engineering

Department, and be placed above the Town Planning Inspectors, who were

re-designated as Junior Engineers / Assistant Engineers.

8.4. It was pointed out that as on the date of merger i.e., on 26.09.1996, the

appellant being part of the Engineering Department, was rightly placed above

9

Respondent No. 1, who belonged to the Town Planning Department and was

only redesignated upon merger. According to learned senior counsel, such

placement was in consonance with the Rules and the instructions contained in

G.O. (Ms.) No. 237 dated 26.09.1996. Hence, G.O. (D) No. 19 was perfectly

valid in law.

8.5. It was also submitted that Annexure I to G.O. No. 237 dated 26.09.1996

specifically provided that the Corporation New Service Rules, 1996 need not be

applied to existing employees for the first promotion to which they became

entitled after issuance of the Rules. It was further clarified therein that

Draughtmen holding Diploma qualifications, were being promoted as Junior

Engineers under the then existing Rules, and therefore the ratio of 3:1 namely

three degree-holders and one diploma holder fixed under the new Rules, need

not be immediately applied. As a special measure, existing Draughtsmen fully

qualified for the post of Junior Engineer were first to be promoted against the

next available vacancies, whereafter the ratio of 3:1 would be applied.

8.6. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the promotion granted to

the appellant was opposed by certain individuals through writ petitions and

contempt proceedings. The learned Single Judge ultimately decided the matter

in favour of the appellant on the basis of the report of a Three-Member

Committee constituted for reviewing and clarifying various doubts raised by the

High Court with reference to Government Letter No. 23418/MC4/2018 dated

12.04.2019. The relevant extract of the report reads thus:

10

“Further, the benefit of relaxation has been extended uniformly to the

Petitioners also in the interests of public administration of Coimbatore

Corporation. Hence, it is observed that there were no irregularity, malpractice,

favouritism, nepotism or corrupt activities or influences identified in extending

the benefits of relaxation of rules.”

8.7. It was further submitted that under the Tamil Nadu Municipal Town

Planning Service Rules, 1970, the qualification prescribed for the post of Town

Planning Inspector was only a Diploma in Civil Engineering as prescribed in the

Annexure to Rule 8 thereof. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Town Planning

Inspector in the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation on 04.08.1993 on the

basis of such Diploma qualification. She had allegedly suppressed the fact of

possessing a B.E. degree at the time of such appointment and, therefore, could

not subsequently claim the benefit of the B.E. qualification either from the year

1987 or from the year 1993, when she was appointed as Town Planning

Inspector.

8.8. It was also contended that once the appellant was promoted as Junior

Engineer, he was re-designated as Assistant Engineer upon acquiring the B.E.

qualification, which was permissible under the applicable Rules not only in the

Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, but throughout the State of Tamil

Nadu. Therefore, the subsequent promotions of both the appellant and

Respondent No. 1 to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer and Executive

Engineer were in accordance with the Rules, and no discrimination whatsoever

had been practised by the Government.

11

8.9. It was lastly submitted that though the appellant had been directed to look

after the duties of Junior Engineer on 05.11.1997, he was not formally promoted

when the merger took place. He was therefore constrained to approach the High

Court by filing several writ petitions. Only thereafter, and in compliance with

the orders of the High Court, G.O. (D) No. 19 came to be issued promoting him

as Assistant Engineer with effect from 14.04.1997 notionally and placing him

above the Town Planning Inspectors redesignated as Junior Engineers /

Assistant Engineers by proceedings dated 11.04.1997.

8.10. Accordingly, the learned senior counsel submitted that the appellant had

been granted promotion strictly in terms of the orders passed by the High Court.

The Division Bench, therefore, committed a grave error in allowing the writ

appeal filed by Respondent No. 1 and in dismissing the review application

preferred by the appellant. The impugned judgment and orders, it was

submitted, are liable to be set aside by this Court.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.6883-6884/2026

@ SLP(C) Nos.14666–14667/2025, who are Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Civil

Appeal Nos.6885-6886/2026 @ SLP(C) Nos.14726–14727/2025, namely, State

of Tamil Nadu and the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, submitted that

the High Court erred in recording a finding that there were irregularities in the

appointment and promotion of the appellant. It was contended that pursuant to

several orders passed by the High Court in different writ petitions, G.O.(D) No.

19 came to be issued promoting the appellant to the post of Assistant Engineer,

12

after taking into consideration the fact that he was holding the post of Overseer,

had acquired a B.E. Degree, and had also been discharging the duties of

Assistant Engineer from 05.11.1997 on administrative grounds.

9.1. It was further submitted that the appellant had been appointed as Overseer

vide G.O.(D) No. 448 dated 11.08.1995 pursuant to the order dated 04.03.1991

passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 2857 of 1991. Owing to administrative

reasons, the appellant could not derive the consequential benefit at the relevant

time. Subsequently, G.O. (D) No. 19 came to be issued granting him notional

promotion with attendant benefits, pursuant to the orders of the High Court

dated 08.10.2001 passed in W.P. No. 18493 of 2001 and dated 23.09.2003 in

W.P. No. 21461 of 2003, and after considering the specific instructions

contained in G.O. Ms. 237 dated 26.09.1996. It was emphasised that the scheme

of merger and the instructions issued thereunder were never challenged by any

person, including the parties to the present proceedings. Therefore, the same

operated uniformly across the cadre, and no special concession had been

extended exclusively to the appellant.

9.2. Learned counsel also submitted that pursuant to directions issued by the

learned Single Judge in contempt proceedings as well as in writ petitions filed

by a batch of individuals challenging the relaxations granted in the matter of

promotions of the appellant, a Three-Member Committee was constituted. The

Committee, upon examination, concluded that there were no infractions or

irregularities in the promotions granted to the appellant. Based on the said

13

report, the High Court closed the contempt proceedings vide order dated

22.01.2020.

9.3. It was ultimately submitted that the promotions granted to Respondent

No. 1 and to the appellant between the years 1997 and 2007 had been issued

prior to finalisation of inter se seniority. According to learned counsel, the

seniority position was restored to its proper line only in the year 2007, after a

lapse of nearly ten years. It was further contended that the correctness of the

inter se seniority was again examined in Contempt Petition Nos. 675, 762 and

499 of 2019, and the learned Single Judge accepted the validity of the

promotions granted to the appellant.

9.4. However, the Division Bench, by the impugned judgment, cast suspicion

on the relaxations and decided the matter in favour of Respondent No. 1 and

against the appellant. According to learned counsel, if the relaxations and

promotions were found valid in the year 2019, they could not suddenly be held

invalid in the year 2024 in relation to the appellant. It was submitted that all

relaxations had already been judicially examined and upheld by the High Court,

and the Government had merely complied with the orders passed by the High

Court. Hence, there was neither illegality nor irregularity in granting promotions

to the appellant.

9.5. With these submissions, learned counsel prayed that the appeals preferred

by the State and the Corporation be allowed by setting aside the impugned

judgement and orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

14

10. Learned senior counsel appearing for the impleading applicant,

K.Saravanakumar submitted that the said applicant was appointed on

21.10.1992 as a Foreman in the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation and

was subsequently appointed as Workshop Junior Engineer vide G.O. Ms. No.

190 dated 04.10.1995. It was contended that the appellant was illegally

appointed as Junior Engineer on 12.08.1999 was thereafter redesignated as

Assistant Engineer under impugned G.O. (D) No. 19 as a special case, by

relaxing the Rules in complete violation of the applicable Service Rules and

Fundamental Rules.

10.1. It was submitted that as on 01.10.1996, K.Saravanakumar was holding the

post of Junior Engineer, whereas the appellant was working as Overseer.

Therefore, the applicant was senior both in terms of post and pay scale, and

consequently the appellant could not be placed above him or claim seniority in

the cadre of Junior Engineer.

10.2. It was further submitted that the appellant was ranked at Serial No. 4 in

the seniority list for the post of Technical Assistant published on 28.07.1998.

The eligibility requirement for promotion from Technical Assistant to Junior

Engineer was five years of service, which, according to the learned senior

counsel, had not been fulfilled by him.

10.3. It was also contended that the names of the impleading applicant and

Respondent No. 1 were reflected in the inter se seniority list dated 08.06.2001

prepared in accordance with the merger policy and in the ratio of 3:1 with

15

reference to the crucial date of 01.10.1996. Hence, the contention that the

impleading applicant was junior to Respondent No. 1 and disentitled to claim

the benefit flowing from the impugned judgment in W.A. No. 996 of 2015 was

stated to be unsustainable in law.

10.4. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the post of Assistant

Engineer could be filled only by direct recruitment, and therefore the appellant

could not have been redesignated as Assistant Engineer merely on the basis of

having acquired a part-time B.E. degree.

10.5. It was pointed out that the appellant’s request for application of the ratio

of 3:1 by treating him as Assistant Engineer (Works) and applying the same vis-

à-vis Assistant Engineer (Planning) was wholly imaginary, unworkable, and

contrary to law as the said ratio was applicable only to Town Planning

Inspectors transferred to the Engineering Department.

10.6. It was next contended that the Government had misused its power of

relaxation by issuing G.O. (D) No. 19.

10.7. It was submitted that four out of five charge memoranda issued against

the impleading applicant had been dropped as not proved, while the fifth order

imposing punishment had been challenged by him before the High Court in

W.A. No. 2434 of 2024.

10.8. It was also submitted that the second Committee Report stood vitiated by

malice in law and perversity, since its findings dealt with the relaxations granted

16

under G.O. (D) No. 19 and not G.O. Ms. No. 448 which formed the subject

matter of the batch of writ petitions and contempt petitions.

10.9. Learned senior counsel further submitted that by order dated 14.08.2007,

the name of the impleading applicant was deleted from the combined seniority

list and placed in a separate seniority list for the post of Junior Engineer

(Mechanical). Aggrieved thereby, he preferred an appeal before the

Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai, on 12.05.2008, which

came to be allowed vide Roc No. 4298/2008/F4 dated 29.05.2008. Consequent

thereto, the Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, was directed to promote

the applicant as Assistant Executive Engineer (Main Office), and the same was

confirmed vide G.O. (Ms.) No. 526 dated 16.12.2008. It was also pointed out

that the challenge to deletion of his name from the seniority list had failed in

W.P. No. 27061 of 2008 by order dated 11.07.2017 which was affirmed in W.A.

No. 1618 of 2017 dated 27.04.2023. Therefore, according to learned senior

counsel, the issue stood concluded and was hit by the principles of constructive

res judicata.

10.10. Accordingly, the learned senior counsel prayed that the impleading

applicant be granted notional promotion to the post of Assistant Executive

Engineer for the year 2007 in place of the appellant.

11. In reply to the above submissions, the learned senior counsel for the

appellant submitted that K.Saravanakumar was merely a fence-sitter and had

17

approached this Court directly without first pursuing any substantive

proceedings before the High Court.

11.1. It was further submitted that the impleading applicant had misled this

Court regarding his service status, since Rule 3 of the relevant Service Rules

clearly provided that a person could be appointed to Class I, Category 1

(Assistant Executive Engineer) only by promotion from Class II, Category 1 and

Class II, Category 2. Class II, Category 5, namely Workshop Junior Engineer,

Grade II, to which K. Saravanakumar belonged, had no promotional avenue

whatsoever.

11.2. It was submitted that vide G. O. Ms. No. 140 dated 27.05.1997, it had

already been clarified that the impleading applicant could not claim any

seniority in the Engineering and Water Supply Departments of the Corporation

and would continue in the same post till superannuation.

11.3. It was further contended that despite such clarification, the name of the

impleading applicant had been erroneously included in the seniority list issued

by the Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, vide Roc. No 8633/98 (MC 23)/

MC2 dated 08.06.2001 at Serial No. 22, which error was later rectified by

deleting his name vide Proceedings R.C. No. 177768/06/M.C.1 dated

04.07.2007. In the said seniority list, the appellant was shown at Serial No. 1

and Respondent No. 1 at Serial No. 2.

11.4. Learned senior counsel also pointed out that irrespective of whether the

promotions granted to the impleading applicant were right or wrong, the

18

communication bearing R.C. No. 5862/2022/M.C.1 dated 16.11.2022 reflected

the names of eligible Assistant Executive Engineers for promotion to Executive

Engineer. However, at that stage, disciplinary charges had been framed against

the impleading applicant under Section 8(2) of the Coimbatore Corporation

(Disciplinary and Appeals) Rules, 1986. Owing to the pendency of charges and

the punishment imposed, coupled with the fact that he was otherwise not

entitled to promotion, the Municipal Administration and Water Supply

Department, vide G.O. (2P) No. 21 dated 11.04.2023 did not consider his case

for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer.

11.5. Accordingly, learned senior counsel prayed for dismissal of the

impleading application filed by K. Saravanakumar.

12. Learned senior counsel appearing for the impleading applicant,

S. Velumayil, submitted that the said applicant was initially appointed as Water

Meter Reader in the Coimbatore Municipality on 13.08.1973 and was

subsequently promoted as Water Worker Overseer. Thereafter, he was promoted

to the post of Water Works Junior Engineer, Grade II, Class II, Category 2, vide

proceedings of the Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation in R.C. No.

82703/88/05 dated 24.12.1990, pursuant to Appointment Committee Resolution

No. 51 dated 17.12.1990 in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Municipal

Engineering Service Rules, 1970. According to learned senior counsel, under

the said Rules, his next promotional post was Assistant Executive Engineer.

19

12.1. It was submitted that the feeder categories for promotion to Assistant

Executive Engineer were Junior Engineer (Public Works) and Junior Engineer

(Water Works), being Category 1 and Category 2 of Class II, which together

constituted the Junior Engineer (Works) category.

12.2. Learned senior counsel further submitted that S.Velumayil was senior to

K.Saravanakumar who belonged to Class II, Category 5, namely Workshop

Junior Engineer, Grade II, which was not a feeder category for promotion to

Assistant Executive Engineer under Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal

Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 1970. It was further submitted that this

position had been expressly clarified by the Government of Tamil Nadu vide

G.O.Ms.No.140 dated 27.05.1997.

12.3. Attention was drawn to the fact that the name of K.Saravanakumar had

been erroneously included in the seniority list dated 08.06.2001 issued by the

Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, which was later rectified vide

proceedings dated 04.07.2007 deleting his name therefrom. In the revised

seniority list, the appellant was placed at Serial No. 1, Respondent No. 1 at

Serial No. 2, and S. Velumayil at Serial No. 12.

12.4. It was also pointed out that K.Saravanakumar had submitted a

representation seeking redesignation of his post as Assistant Engineer (Special)

and consequential promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer, which

representation was rejected by the Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation vide

proceedings No. 177769/06/MC1 dated 14.08.2007.

20

12.5. Learned senior counsel accordingly prayed that the impleading applicant

S.Velumayil be considered for promotion, that K.Saravanakumar be excluded

from any claim of seniority over him, and that all consequential monetary

benefits due from the year 2008 be granted.

13. Despite service of notice, there was no representation on behalf of

Respondent No. 1 either in person or through counsel.

14. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

15. The undisputed facts are that the appellant was initially appointed as

Fitter in the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department in the year

1988 and was thereafter promoted as Overseer on 01.12.1995, pursuant to the

order dated 04.03.1991 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 2857 of

1991. The appellant completed his B.E. degree (Civil) in November, 1996.

16. Thereafter, G.O. (Ms.) No. 237 Municipal Administration and Water

Supply (Election) Department, dated 26.09.1996 came to be issued, framing the

Tamil Nadu Municipal Corporations Service Rules, 1996 which were made

applicable to all Corporations, including Coimbatore City Municipal

Corporation, except the Corporation of Chennai. The relevant portion of the

Government Order reads thus:

“6. The Commissioners of all the Corporations (except the Corporation of

Chennai) are requested to implement the new Corporation Service Rules issued

in this order with effect from the 1st October 1996. While implementing the new

service Rules, in the Corporations, all the Commissioners are requested to

follow strictly the instructions contained in Annexure - I to this order.…”

21

16.1. Annexure – I to the said Government Order contained instructions to be

followed by the Commissioners of all Corporations except Chennai. The

relevant portions thereof are extracted below:

“…

Since the scale of pay of the Town Planning Inspectors is less than the scale of

pay of the Junior Engineers, while fixing the inter-se-seniority, it is not fair to

take the date of first appointment, the total services etc. of the individuals.

Further, these Town Planning Inspectors who are Engineering Graduates will

be designated as Assistant Engineers and these who are Diploma holders as

Junior Engineers.

Therefore, one list of names of Assistant Engineers of the Engineering and

Water Supply Department may be prepared and the names of Assistant

Engineers transferred from the Town Planning Department of the Corporation

may be placed below the names of Assistant Engineers of the Engineering and

Water Supply Department. The names of Assistant Engineers of the Town

Planning Department may be placed in the order of their seniority in the past of

Town Planning Inspectors. Another list of names of Junior Engineers of the

Engineering and Water Supply Department may be prepared and the name of

Junior Engineers transferred from the Town Planning Department may be

placed below the names of the Junior Engineers of the Engineering and Water

Supply Department in the order of their seniority in the post of Town Planning

Inspectors. In future, the initial appointment itself shall be made at the ratio of

3:1 ie., 3 Engineering Graduate Assistant Engineers and one Diploma holder

Junior Engineer, hence the question of fixing the seniority at the ratio of 3:1

does not arise. But it becomes necessary to follow the ratio of 3:1 now, while

fixing the inter-se-seniority between the Assistant Engineers and Junior

Engineers along with the Town Planning Inspectors who are also being

transferred to the Engineering and Water Supply Department…”

(4) PROMOTION OF DRAUGHTSMEN AS JUNIOR ENGINEERS BEFORE

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW CORPORATION SERVICE RULES: -

At present, the Draughtsmen who are Diploma holders are being promoted as

Junior Engineers under the existing Rules in force. There will be qualified

Draughtsmen waiting for promotion as Junior Engineers in the next vacancies.

Since the ratio of 3:1 (ie., 3 Graduate Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment

and one Junior Engineer by promotion) has been fixed in the new Service Rules,

it will take time form these Draughtsmen to be promoted as Junior Engineers.

Therefore, as a special case, before following the ratio of 3:1 under the new

Service Rules, the Draughtsmen who are qualified for the post of Junior

Engineers and are waiting for promotion in the next vacancies, may be

22

promoted first in such vacancies and taken the ratio of 3:1 may be followed

strictly for recruitment to the future vacancies. This will avoid hardship among

the draughtsmen, since similar diploma holders holding the posts of Town

Planning Inspectors and who are in the scale of pay of Draughtsmen ie.,

Rs.1350-2200, are being designated as Junior Engineers and their services are

being merged with the Engineering and Water Supply Department under the

new Service Rules.”

17. The aforesaid instructions make it clear that Assistant Engineers

transferred from the Town Planning Department were to be placed below the

Assistant Engineers of the Engineering and Water Supply Department. There is

no dispute that the appellant belonged to the Engineering Department, whereas

Respondent No. 1 belonged to the Town Planning Department. Notably, the

aforesaid Government Order was never challenged by any one including the

parties to the present proceedings.

18. It is further undisputed that the appellant had filed Writ Petition No.

18493 of 2001 seeking a writ of mandamus to consider his representation dated

04.10.2000, whereby he requested that, on the basis of G.O. Ms. No. 237 dated

26.09.1996, he be upgraded to the post of Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer

with effect from 01.10.1996, and that the pay scale of Assistant Engineer be

fixed with effect from 05.11.1997, i.e., the date from which he commenced

discharging the duties of Junior Engineer. The appellant thereafter joined as

Junior Engineer on 12.08.1999 and stood redesignated as Assistant Engineer on

02.12.1999 with effect from 12.08.1999.

23

19. The appellant subsequently filed Writ Petition No. 21461 of 2003 seeking

direction to the Government to pass orders on the proposal forwarded by the

Commissioner of Municipal Administration favourably considering his

representation dated 04.10.2000. By order dated 23.09.2003, the High Court

directed the Government to pass appropriate orders on the said proposal.

Pursuant thereto, G.O. (D) No. 19 Municipal Administration and Water Supply

(MC IV) Department dated 18.01.2005 came to be passed. A perusal of the

same indicates that on the basis of G.O. Ms. No. 237 dated 26.09.1996, orders

were passed promoting the appellant T. Gnanavel as Assistant Engineer with

effect from 14.04.1997 notionally, with monetary benefits from the date of the

Appointment Committee Resolution dated 26.10.1998, and placing him above

the Town Planning Inspectors who had been redesignated as Junior Engineers /

Assistant Engineers by proceedings dated 11.04.1997. It was also recorded

therein that the appellant would be eligible for further promotion as Assistant

Executive Engineer.

20. It is this G.O. (D) No.19 dated 18.01.2005 which came to be challenged

by Respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 4704 of 2005 on the ground that she

had been placed below the appellant in seniority, and from that point the present

lis has arisen. By order dated 19.04.2012, the learned Single Judge rightly

dismissed the said writ petition, placing reliance on the policy decision of the

Government as reflected in G.O. Ms. No. 237 dated 26.09.1996.

24

21. An important turn of events thereafter was that, by proceedings dated

07.11.2007, both the appellant and Respondent No. 1 were promoted as

Assistant Executive Engineer, and from that point onwards, there was no

surviving contest between them on the aspect of seniority. It is also to be noted

that once again, both were promoted as Executive Engineers on 27.01.2016, and

Respondent No. 1 retired from service on 30.09.2023.

22. In the judgment under appeal, the Division Bench appears to have been

oblivious to these material facts. Indeed, there is no meaningful discussion on

merits, and the Court seems to have been swayed by certain assertions that the

appellant’s promotion was granted in violation of the Service Rules, which

stand belied by the materials placed on record.

23. The further direction of the Division Bench requiring scrutiny of the files

is equally unsustainable, in view of the fact that in Contempt Petition Nos. 499,

675, 762 of 2019, by order dated 22.01.2020, the High Court had already

recorded that pursuant to earlier orders passed in writ petitions filed by

colleagues of the appellant, the Government had constituted a Committee

which, after detailed scrutiny of the promotions granted to several persons

including the appellant, the Rules in force, and the surrounding circumstances,

found no illegality or discrepancy in the promotions granted. Recording the said

findings, the contempt petitions were closed.

24. This important subsequent development was also not noticed by the

Division Bench. Moreover, long after the retirement of Respondent No. 1, when

25

nothing substantial survived for adjudication, the Division Bench thought it fit

to interfere with a Government Order issued nearly two decades earlier, which

would have the chilling effect of unsettling all promotions made till date in the

respondent corporation.

25. As far as the impleading applicant, K.Saravanakumar is concerned, he

was not a party to any of the proceedings before the High Court, nor did he

choose to intervene or seek impleadment in the lis between the appellant and

Respondent No. 1. It is only before this Court that he sought impleadment. In

paragraphs 31 to 33 of his affidavit, he himself states that disciplinary

proceedings are pending against him, thereby showing that he is, in any event,

not presently entitled to promotion.

25.1. Notwithstanding the pendency of such proceedings and the intra-court

appeal arising therefrom, he claims notional promotion to the post of Assistant

Executive Engineer on par with the appellant, once the appellant vacates the

post pursuant to the impugned judgment. Such a claim discloses no enforceable

legal right and demonstrates that he is a complete outsider to the present

proceedings. He has neither established, nor even prima facie shown, that he is

senior to the appellant. Had that been so, he would not have remained in the

wings and sought impleadment only at the final stage.

25.2. This Court finds him to be a fence-sitter. It is settled law that fence-sitters

cannot be permitted to raise a dispute relating to seniority and consequential

promotion or challenge the validity of an order after the matter has concluded.

26

No party can claim relief as a matter of right, and one of the well-recognised

grounds for refusing relief is that the person approaching the Court is guilty of

delay and laches. A court exercising public law jurisdiction does not encourage

the agitation of stale claims, particularly in matters of seniority and promotion,

where the rights of third parties have crystallised in the interregnum [See Shiba

Shankar Mohapatra and others v. State of Orissa and others, (2010) 12 SCC

471]. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the impleading applicant.

26. As far as the impleading applicant, S.Velumayil is concerned, in his

application, he himself admitted that in the revised seniority list, he is junior to

the appellant and Respondent No. 1, and senior to K. Saravanakumar.

Moreover, he raised objections to the consideration of the claim of the

impleading applicant K. Saravanakumar. Since this Court has rejected the claim

of K. Saravanakumar on the ground that he is a fence-sitter, the present

impleading applicant is also not entitled to any relief in these appeals.

27. Accordingly, the order dated 04.10.2024 in Review Application No. 249

of 2024 and the Judgement dated 23.07.2024 in Writ Appeal No. 996 of 2015

passed by the High Court are set aside and the Government Order in G.O. (D)

No. 19 Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC IV) Department, dated

18.01.2005, stands restored. Consequently, the subsequent promotions granted

to the appellant to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer and Executive

Engineer are held to be valid. The appellant shall also be entitled to further

promotion from the date on which he became eligible thereof.

27

28. The Civil Appeals stand allowed on the aforesaid terms. Accordingly, the

impleading applications stand disposed of. There shall be no order to costs.

29. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed.

..……...…………………… .……J.

[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ]

.…………………………J.

[R. MAHADEVAN]

NEW DELHI;

MAY 04, 2026.