TMI Blog1966 (11) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch others promoted before and after them had received. According to the petitions, some of these persons had received such benefits before the petitioners and some had been accorded similar advantages although they were promoted as Assistant Engineers long after the petitioners, but the State of Mysore had, without any reason, declined to give similar benefits to the petitioners. The facts as they emerge from the affidavits and the documents referred to therein are as follows. The State of Mysore, before the States Reorganisation Act 1956, used to employ engineering graduates for a long time past designating them as surveyors. The State had another cadre of engineers known as Assistant Engineers. Surveyors who were posted as officers in charge of sub-divisions were from time to time promoted to the cadre of Assistant Engineers. Between March 24, 1944 and December 15, 1944, a batch of 27 surveyors were placed in charge of different sub-divisions in the State. This batch was promoted to the cadre of Assistant Engineers with effect from May 21, 1945. Another batch of officers who were placed in charge of sub-divisions between May 11,1945 and January 2, 1946 were similarly promoted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate. According to the Chief Engineer, had these persons been promoted as and when vacancies occurred, they would not only have been in receipt of a much higher pay in their progressive grade but also would have been senior to many of the Assistant Engineers who had come in from the newly merged areas of Hyderabad, Bombay and Madras. The Chief Engineer also commented that in addition to this double disadvantage to which these persons had been exposed, they were also going to lose all chances of promotion to the higher ranks because the, Assistant Engineers from the merged areas were all younger to them in age. The attention of the Government was drawn to the promotion of a previous batch of 41 supervisors already mentioned. The letter ended with a recommendation that a similar consideration should be extended to these 63 persons and their ranks in the common civil list be fixed with reference to the date of occurrence of the vacancies. It appears that the Chief Engineer pursued this subject from time to time making his recommendation about these persons. By letter dated July 10, 1957 the Chief Engineer pointed out that as the Inter-State seniority list of Assistant Engineers was soo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s well as persons who had been appointed subsequently, there was no reason why such concessions should have been withheld from his clients. In conclusion, it was urged that it was just and proper that the State of Mysore should be directed to fix the scale of seniority of these 63 persons on the basis that sup.CI/66-6 they had become Assistant Engineers from the dates on which the vacancies to which they had been posted had occurred so that they would not lose their chances of promotion in higher posts, for if the seniority list was allowed to remain as it is, persons who were younger in age and junior in service to this batch of 63 persons would receive promotions ahead of them for no fault of theirs. According to the counter affidavit of the State of Mysore used before the High Court, the idea behind giving some concession to the batch of 41 persons was to give them some financial benefit as from a particular date, viz., 1-10-1948 and no more. This does not appear to be strictly accurate in view of the order dated May 17, 1950. With regard to the batch of 63 persons, it was said that the necessary details regarding their seniority and dates of occurrence of vacancies were not ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e which has been unevenly applied as among equals ; (b) if a principle has been evolved, whether it has been unevenly applied ; and (c) whether there has been an equal treatment in applying executive orders. Mr. Iyengar argued that there was no rule which had been violated in this case nor any principle had been evolved which could be said to have been unevenly applied nor was there any executive order which has been given effect to in different ways in different cases. Mr. Iyengar's second submission was that if the. 63 persons were to be fixed in the cadre with respect to the dates on which they were first put in charge of sub-divisions, the seniority list with regard to the whole cadre of engineers would have to be altered thus affecting persons who are not before us and who would be condemned unheard. His third submission was that giving effect to the contention of the appellants would be projecting Art. 14 to a date before the Constitution came into force and This could not be allowed. He also argued that the appellants had been guilty of laches in making their applications in 1964 when they were really complaining of an order which had been passed as, far back as May 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
