Association Of Engineers vs The State Of Tamil Nadu

2024 INSC 306 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4886-4888 OF 2023

ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERS AND OTHERS ETC. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS ETC. ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4372 OF 2023

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4891-4892 OF 2023

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4889-4890 OF 2023

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5747-5750 OF 2023

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

Civil Appeal Nos. 4886 to 4889, 4892 and 5748 to 5750 of 2023

1. The present set of appeals challenge the judgment

dated 3rd August 2022, passed by the Division Bench of the

Signature Not VerifiedHigh Court of Judicature at Madras (‘Madras High Court’ for Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2024.04.16

short), whereby the writ appeals being W.A. Nos. 82 and 95 of 13:03:56 IST Reason:

2015 and 5251 of 2022 filed by the respondents herein were 1 allowed and the order dated 23rd December 2014 passed by the

learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition

No. 11148 of 2017 was quashed and set aside.

2. The facts giving rise to present appeals are as under:

2.1 The employees are governed by Tamil Nadu State and

Subordinate Service Rules and also Special Rules to govern

different services in the State. The engineering staff comes

under the Tamil Nadu Engineering Service and Tamil Nadu

Engineering Subordinate Service.

2.2 On 2nd January 1990, Public Works Department,

Government of Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as ‘PWD’)

issued an order being G.O. Ms. No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as

‘G.O. No. 1) accepting the recommendations of Chief Engineer,

PWD (General) and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission

(hereinafter referred to as ‘TNPSC’) and directed that from the

date of this order, Junior Draughting Officers, Draughting

Officers, Overseers and Technical Assistants, who have

completed 5 years of service and acquired B.E./A.M.I.E.

qualification, will be entitled to be appointed as Assistant

Engineers on transfer of service.

2 2.3 On 22nd January 1991, Government Order being G.O.

Ms. No. 88 of 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “G.O. No. 88”)

came to be issued wherein it was clarified that TNPSC need not

be consulted for appointment of Junior Draughting Officers,

Draughting Officers, Overseers and Technical Assistants, who

have completed 5 years of service and acquired B.E./A.M.I.E.

qualification, as Assistant Engineers.

2.4 Writ Petition No. 3309 of 1991 came to be filed before

the Madras High Court by Engineering Graduates challenging

G.O. No.1 on the ground that part-time B.E. Degrees were

inferior to regular B.E. Degrees. The same were dismissed vide

order dated 8th March 1991.

2.5 On 31st May 1994, an advertisement being No. 9/94

was issued by the TNPSC for direct recruitment of Assistant

Engineers. This advertisement was challenged by several

Junior Draughting Officers, Draughting Officers and Technical

Assistants before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,

Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal) on the ground

that their appointment should also be considered in the

advertised posts in terms of abovementioned G.O. Nos. 1 and

88.

3 2.6 The Tribunal, vide order dated 17th April 1997, allowed

the applications filed by Junior Draughting Officers and

Draughting Officers, however, dismissed the applications filed

by Technical Assistants. The Tribunal observed that the

Technical Assistants are not part of feeder category from which

recruitment by transfer can be made for the post of Assistant

Engineers.

2.7 Thereafter, Association of Engineers, one of the

appellants herein filed Writ Petition No. 7523 of 1997 before

the Madras High Court challenging the above finding of the

Tribunal qua the Junior Draughting Officers and Draughting

Officers. The Technical Assistants never challenged the

dismissal of their applications by the Tribunal. The High Court,

vide order dated 6th November 2006, dismissed the said writ

petition. In the year 2009, the said order of the High Court was

challenged before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 995 of 2009.

This Court, vide order dated 14th September 2017, dismissed

the said appeal.

2.8 From 1999 till 2002, a total number of 491 vacancies

in the post of Assistant Engineers were notified to be filled up.

Out of the same, 369 vacancies were to be filled up by direct

4 recruitment and the remaining 122 vacancies were to be filled

up by recruitment by transfer. Out of the said 122 vacancies

referable to the feeder categories for appointment by

recruitment by transfer, 29 vacancies alone had been filled up

so far.

2.9 The State Government, due to dearth of eligible

candidates to fill the remaining 93 vacancies by transfer,

issued directions dated 24th February 2006 directing

appointment of persons in the category of Technical Assistant,

who possessed B.E./A.M.I.E. qualification in Civil Engineering

and have rendered 5 years of service on temporary basis.

2.10 Vide Proceedings No. S2(2)/29148/2004-24 dated 27th

February 2006, 21 Technical Assistants were appointed as

Assistant Engineers on temporary basis.

2.11 The Association of Engineers, one of the appellants

herein, filed writ petition being WP No. 11148 of 2007 before

the Madras High Court challenging the abovementioned

appointment order dated 27th February 2006 on the ground

that the same was violative of the order dated 17th April 1997

passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3348 of 1994 and also the

order dated 6th November 2006 passed by the Madras High

5 Court in WP No. 7523 of 1997. Further, the appointments are

against the statutory rules prescribed.

2.12 Vide order dated 23rd December 2014, the learned

Single Judge of the High Court allowed the said writ petition

being WP No. 11148 of 2007 and restrained the official

respondents from appointing Technical Assistants as Assistant

Engineers by recruitment by transfer unless and until the

statutory rules were amended making Technical Assistants as

feeder category. The services of respondents herein were to be

continued for a period of 3 months and in case the rules are

amended by inclusion of Technical Assistants as feeder

category within three months, they would not suffer reversion.

However, if the rules are not amended, then they will be

reverted to their original post.

2.13 In 2016, the unemployed engineering graduates had

filed a writ petition being WP No. 36614 of 2016 before the

Madras High Court challenging the validity of G.O. No. 1. The

matter is still pending adjudication.

2.14 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single

Judge dated 23rd December 2014, writ appeals being W.A. Nos.

82 and 95 of 2015 were filed before the learned Division Bench

6 of the Madras High Court by the respondents herein. The

learned Division Bench of the Madras High Court, vide

impugned judgment dated 3rd August 2022, quashed and set

aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allowed the writ

appeals filed by the respondents herein.

2.15 Aggrieved thereby, the present set of appeals came to

be filed.

3. We have heard Smt. Madhavi Divan, learned Senior

Counsel, Shri N. Subramaniyan and Shri Pranav Sachdeva,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. We have

also heard Shri V. Prakash and Shri Senthil Jagadeesan,

learned Senior Counsel, and Shri P. Rajendran, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. We have also

heard Shri Sanjay Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu.

4. Smt. Madhavi Divan, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that in the

absence of amendment to the Rules, Technical Assistants

cannot be permitted to be in the feeder cadre for promotion to

the post of Assistant Engineers. She submitted that, in spite

of several chances, the State has failed to carry out amendment

7 to the Rules and in the absence of Rules, they are not entitled

to be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers. Smt. Divan,

relying on Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Engineering Services

submitted that the entry into the Assistant Engineers’ Cadre,

is either by direct recruitment or recruitment by transfer from

Junior Engineers, Overseers, Special Grade Draughting

Officers or Civil Draughtsmen of Tamil Nadu Engineering

Subordinate Service. It is submitted that the appointment to

the post of Technical Assistants has been provided under G.O.

MS. No. 1972 dated 18th November 1985. The said G.O.

provided that the general and special rules applicable to the

holders of the permanent posts in the Tamil Nadu Engineering

Subordinate Service shall apply to the holders of the temporary

posts of Technical Assistants Civil, Electrical and Mechanical.

However, that was subject to the modifications specified

therein. The appointing authority to the said posts was the

Superintending Engineer of PWD.

5. Smt. Divan submitted that by G.O. MS. No. 1356 dated

2nd August 1980, the State provided for appointment to the post

of Junior Engineers (now Assistant Engineers) from the cadre

of Draughtsman Grade III, Overseers and Technical Assistants,

8 who, on acquiring degree qualification in Engineering have

rendered 5 years of service as Draughtsmen, Overseers,

Technical Assistants.

6. Smt. Divan submitted that the appointment of

Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers is totally illegal,

violative of Right to Equality under Article 14 of the

Constitution of India and also violative of Article 335 of the

Constitution of India which mandates efficiency in public

administration. It is further submitted that the entry of

Assistant Engineers is through competitive examination on the

basis of merit whereas the entry of Technical Assistants is

through a backdoor entry i.e. appointment by the

Superintending Engineer. It is therefore submitted that,

permitting the Technical Assistants to march ahead of the

Assistant Engineers would, apart from being anti-meritian,

would also promote the persons who have entered through

backdoor.

7. Smt. Divan further submitted that the temporary

appointments of Technical Assistants have neither been

regularized nor has their probation commenced. It is therefore

submitted that without regularization and declaration of

9 probation in the category of Assistant Engineers as mandated

by Rule 7 of Special Rules to Tamil Nadu Engineering Service,

they cannot be made as Assistant Engineers.

8. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the

case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’

Association v. State of Maharashtra and Others1 in

support of the proposition that unless the appointment is in

accordance with the rules, the same is not valid. Reliance is

also placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of A.K.

Bhatnagar and Others v. Union of India and Others2

contending that this Court has categorically rejected the

argument to consider the appointment of ad-hoc appointees

without regularization.

9. Shri N. Subramaniyan, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellants supplemented the arguments advanced

by Smt. Divan. He submitted that sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of

Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules postulates

that a person is said to be ‘appointed to a service’ when in

accordance with the said Rules or in accordance with the Rules

1 (1990) 2 SCC 715 : 1990 INSC 169 2 (1991) 1 SCC 544 : 1990 INSC 344

10 applicable at the time, he discharges, for the first time the

duties of a post borne on the cadre of such service or

commences the probation, instruction or training prescribed

for members thereof. It is submitted that the Technical

Assistants neither commenced their duties on the posts borne

on the cadre of such service nor commenced their probation.

He further submitted that, in accordance with Rule 4 of the

said Rules, all appointments to a service whether by direct

recruitment or by recruitment by transfer or by promotion, can

be made by the appointing authority from a list of approved

candidates. It is submitted that, since the Technical Assistants

are not approved candidates, they cannot be appointed to the

post of Assistant Engineers. He further submitted that the

temporary appointments in accordance with Rule 10 of the said

Rules could be made only for a temporary period only when

there is likelihood of delay in making the appointments in

accordance with the said Rules. He further submitted that, in

accordance with Rule 36A of the said Rules, the appointments

by recruitment by transfer can be made only on the ground of

merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit

and ability are approximately equal. He submitted that,

11 amendment to Rule 4A specifically prohibits promotion or

appointment on the basis of executive orders seeking to modify

the Rules. He therefore submitted that, on several grounds,

the appointments of Technical Assistants are liable to be set

aside.

10. It is further submitted that the appointments so made

are contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of B.

Thirumal v. Ananda Sivakumar and Others3.

11. Per contra, Shri V. Prakash, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that a

perusal of G.O. Ms. No. 3037 dated 22nd December 1986 issued

by the PWD would reveal that the pay-scales of Overseers and

Technical Assistants are the same. It is submitted that the said

G.O. Ms. No. 3037 specifically provides that 75% of the

vacancies in the post of Junior Engineer (formerly Supervisor)

shall be filled up by Engineering degree holders while

remaining 25% vacancies shall be filled up by the candidates

possessing Engineering Diploma or equivalent certificates. It

further provides for promotion from Overseers, Head

Draughtsman and Civil Draughtsman (Grad I, II and III). It is

3 (2014) 16 SCC 593 : 2013 INSC 787

12 submitted that, though the pay-scales of the Overseers are

same as that of Technical Assistants and that of Draughtsman

Grade III, inadvertently, the cadre of Technical Assistants was

not mentioned therein. It is submitted that, in order to rectify

this omission, the G.O. No. 1 came to be issued. It provided

that, Junior Draughting Officers, Draughting Officers,

Overseers and Technical Assistants in PWD, who have put in

five years service would be eligible to be appointed as Assistant

Engineers on transfer of service on acquiring B.E./A.M.I.E.

qualification. Shri Prakash submitted that challenge to the said

G.O. No. 1 was negatived by the Madras High Court vide order

dated 8th March 1991 in Writ Petition No. 3309 of 1991 in the

case of R. Murali and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu

and Another4. The High Court held that the executive

instructions can be issued to fill up the gap till rules are framed

under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

12. Shri Prakash further submitted that, out of 36

Technical Assistants promoted as Assistant Engineers in the

years 2006 and 2008, only a few would be remaining in service

as most of them have been retired or would be retiring in near

4 Order dated 8th March 1991 in Writ Petition No. 3309 of 1991

13 future. He therefore submitted that this is a fit case wherein

this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136

of the Constitution of India.

13. Shri Senthil Jagadeesan, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondents, relying on the

judgment of this Court in the case of Sant Ram Sharma v.

State of Rajasthan and Others5, submitted that where the

rules are silent, the said gap can be filled up by the executive

instructions. He further relies on the order of the Division

Bench of the Madras High Court dated 6th November 2006 in

Writ Petition No. 7523 of 1997 in the case of Association of

Engineers’ v. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal

and Others6.

14. We find that, on account of various facts as emerging

from the record, it will not be necessary for us to go into the

wider issues as canvassed by the parties.

15. G.O. No. 1 which includes Technical Assistants for

being appointed as the Assistant Engineers on transfer of

service on acquiring B.E./A.M.I.E. qualification, came to be

5 1967 SCC OnLine SC 16 : 1967 INSC 167 6 Order dated 6th November 2006 in Writ Petition No. 7523 of 1997

14 challenged by Engineering Graduates who had obtained the

degree by joining regular courses, before the High Court of

Judicature at Madras. The same was negatived by the Madras

High Court by order dated 8th March 1991. It is further

pertinent to note that the Association of Engineers, who is one

of the lead appellants herein, had filed a petition challenging

the order dated 17th April 1997 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.

No. 3348 of 1994.

16. The said O.A No. 3348 of 1994 was filed challenging

the Advertisement No.9/94 issued by the TNPSC for the post of

Assistant Engineer and for consequentially considering the

claim of Junior Draughting Officers, Draughting Officers and

Technical Assistants for appointment as Assistant Engineers

on the basis of G.O. Ms. Nos. 1 of 1990 and 88 of 1991. The

Tribunal, vide order dated 17th April 1997, allowed the

applications filed by the Junior Draughting Officers and

Draughting Officers, however, dismissed the applications filed

by Technical Assistants. The Tribunal observed that the

Technical Assistants are not part of feeder category from which

recruitment by transfer can be made for the post of Assistant

Engineers. The order of the learned Tribunal was challenged

15 by the appellants herein by filing a writ petition being Writ

Petition No. 7523 of 1997 titled Association of Engineers’ v.

The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and Others

(supra) before the Madras High Court. The Division Bench of

the said High Court rejected the claim of the appellants herein

and upheld the order of the Tribunal. It will be relevant to refer

to para (13) of the said order, which reads thus:

“13. It is also brought to our notice that the Special Rules were amended by G.O.Ms.No.1745 dated 10.10.1972, which were subsequently modified by G.O.Ms.No.1356 dated 02.08.1980 and on the basis of representation, the Government reconsidered those executive orders and issued G.O.Ms.No.1 PWD dated 02.01.1990, stating that with effect from the date of the said order, Junior Drafting Officer, Drafting Officer, Overseers and Technical Assistants, who have put in five years of service will be eligible to be appointed as Assistant Engineers by transfer of service on acquiring B.E./A.M.E.E. degree qualification. We are satisfied that Rule 5 of the Special Rules in no way affects the implementation of the decision of the Tribunal in view of Rule 2(a)(5) of the Special Rules. As observed earlier, it is our duty to mention that in order to implement the orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.1 PWD dated 02.01.1990, the Government have conducted meeting with various Engineering Associations, including the petitioner Association on 10.12.1996 and 03.06.1997 and took a decision to maintain 3:1 ratio between the direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer. As rightly pointed out, members of the petitioner Association are being considered for the number of vacancies apportioned as per the ratio out of total estimated vacancies. We 16 have already referred to the order of this Court dated 08.03.1991 in W.P.No.3309 of 1991, upholding the G.O.Ms.No.1 PWD dated 02.01.1990. It is also not in dispute that executive instructions can be issued to fill up the gap till necessary Rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. All these and other materials have been correctly considered by the Tribunal; and we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by it.”

17. It can thus clearly be seen that the Division Bench of

the Madras High Court held that G.O. No. 1 provided that from

the date of the said order, Junior Drafting Officer, Drafting

Officer, Overseers and Technical Assistants, who have put in

five years of service will be eligible to be appointed as Assistant

Engineers by transfer of service on acquiring B.E./A.M.I.E.

degree qualification.

18. It is sought to be urged that, before the Tribunal, the

Technical Assistants had failed and that they had not

challenged the said order of the Tribunal.

19. However, we find that the Division Bench of the Madras

High Court clearly referred to G.O. No. 1 and approved it. It is

further to be noted that the appeal challenging the aforesaid

order of the Madras High Court dated 6th November 2006 has

also been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14 th

17 September 2017 in the case of Association of Engineers v.

Government of Tamil Nadu and Others7.

20. Insofar as the issue in the case of B. Thirumal (supra)

is concerned, the same would not be applicable to the facts of

the present case. In the said case, the appellant was working

as a Junior Engineer (Electrical). He was appointed to the said

post by direct recruitment. Aggrieved by the prevalent practice

of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) being empanelled for

promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer

(Electrical) only against 25% quota apportioned for members of

the Subordinate Engineering Service, he had filed a

representation. The said representation came to be rejected. It

was sought to be contended in the said case that an Assistant

Engineer promoted from Junior Engineer cadre and having

obtained a degree in engineering was also entitled to compete

with the Assistant Engineers directly recruited for 75% of the

quota earmarked for the direct recruits. The Court found that

the degree holder Junior Engineers continue to be members of

the Subordinate Engineering Service even after they are

redesignated as Assistant Engineers upon getting a degree

7 2017 INSC 906

18 qualification. Upon their getting degree qualification, they

could be considered only against the 25% quota apportioned

for the Subordinate Service and not against 75% apportioned

for the State Service members directly recruited to that service

or appointed by transfer in terms of the Rules.

21. Such is not the situation here. The Technical

Assistants are not claiming against the 75% posts available for

direct recruits. Their claim is only towards 25% posts which

are required to be filled in from Junior Draughting Officers,

Overseers and Technical Assistants who have put five years

service and have acquired B.E./A.M.I.E. qualification. It is

thus clear that the Technical Assistants are, in no way,

encroaching upon the quota apportioned for directly recruited

Assistant Engineers. Even if their contention is accepted that

once they are brought in the cadre of Assistant Engineers, they

would lose their birthmark, in view of the judgment of this

Court in the case of B. Thirumal (supra), for the higher post,

and there will be no competition amongst direct recruits and

promotees. Whereas the direct recruits would be entitled to get

promotional posts from 75% quota apportioned for them, the

Technical Assistants along with other placed amongst them

19 would be entitled to promotional posts only from 25% posts

apportioned for them.

22. It is further to be noted that the contention of the

appellants that, the services of the Technical Assistants are not

regularized, is also contrary to record. It will be relevant to

refer to Clause 4 of G.O. Ms. No. 155 dated 13th August 2015,

issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, which reads thus:

“4. In accordance with the powers delegated under the general rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules Volume II, the Governor of Tamil Nadu orders relaxing the rule 2(a) and rule (5) of the Tamil Nadu Engineering Service (Category-

1, Public Works) the so as to regularize the 72 Assistant Engineers (Civil) as per the Annexure of this order who were appointed retrospectively from the category of Junior Engineers and promoted from the category of Technical Assistants who acquired B.E., Civil Degree before promotion as Junior Engineers so as to enable them for regularization of the services in the category of Assistant Engineers (Civil). Further, the Government also order exempting them from the purview of the G.O.(Ms).No. 1, Public Works Department dated 02.01.1990 for regularization of the personnel stated in the Annexure to this order.”

23. It is thus clear that the contention of the appellants

that the services of the Technical Assistants have not been

regularized is contrary to record. In any case, the State

Government, in its affidavit dated 10th March 2023, has

20 categorically reaffirmed this position.

24. It is further relevant to note the relevant extract from

the Proceedings No. S2(2)/2918/2004-24 dated 27th February

2006 conducted before the Engineer-in-Chief, W.R.D and Chief

Engineer (General), PWD, which reads thus:

“During the year from 1999-2000 to 2001-2002 the number of 369 vacancies have been apportioned to the post of Assistant Engineer to be filled up by direct recruitment and the number of 122 vacancies have been apportioned to the post Asst. Engineer to be filled up by recruitment by transfer.

Out of 122 vacancies apportioned to the post of Assistant Engineer to be filled up by recruitment by transfer, only 29 vacancies have been filled up so far, from the Junior Draughting Officers, Draughting Officers and Overseers. The remaining number of 93 vacancies are still vacant due to dearth of eligible candidates.

Under these circumstances and also pursuant to the directions of the Government, PWD issued in the letter fourth cited the personnels in the category of Technical Assistant, who possessed B.E/A.M.I.E qualification in civil Engineering and rendered 5 years of service, furnished to this proceedings are appointed as Asst. Engineer(civil) in the time scale of pay of Rs.65-00-200-11, 100 on temporary basis under rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service, subject to the outcome of W.P.No.7523/97 pending in the High Court of Madras in this matter.”

25. It can thus clearly be seen that the State Government

was required to take a decision to appoint Technical Assistants

21 as Assistant Engineers on temporary basis as it was found that

out of 122 vacancies apportioned to the post of Assistant

Engineer to be filled up by recruitment by transfer, only 29

vacancies had been filled so far. It appears that the attempt of

the appellant association is to grab all the posts available even

those apportioned for the candidates promoted from

subordinate services. In our view, the said attitude is totally

unequitable.

26. In any case, any interference at this stage is likely to

undo the settled position which has been prevalent almost for

a period of last 18 years. As already held hereinabove, the

continuation of the appellants as Assistant Engineers would

not amount to encroaching upon the 75% posts apportioned

for the members of the appellants’ association. We may

gainfully refer to the following observations of this Court in the

case of Narpat Singh and Others v. Jaipur Development

Authority and Another8:

“10. ….The exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution on this Court is discretionary. It does not confer a right to appeal on a party to litigation; it only confers a discretionary power of widest amplitude on this Court to be exercised for satisfying the demands of justice. On 8 (2002) 4 SCC 666 : 2002 INSC 222

22 one hand, it is an exceptional power to be exercised sparingly, with caution and care and to remedy extraordinary situations or situations occasioning gross failure of justice; on the other hand, it is an overriding power whereunder the Court may generously step in to impart justice and remedy injustice. The facts and circumstances of this case as have already been set out do not inspire the conscience of this Court to act in the aid of the appellants. …..”

27. Following the aforesaid, we find that equity demands

no interference to be warranted in the impugned judgment in

the facts and circumstances of the case.

28. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.

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

Civil Appeal Nos. 4372, 4890, 4891 and 5747 of 2023

30. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the writ

petitions being WP No. 3617 of 2017 and 35161 of 2019 filed

before the Madras High Court were decided by it without even

adverting to the facts and the rival submissions and they

therefore made a request for remanding the matter to the High

Court for consideration afresh.

31. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned

orders dated 3rd August 2022 in WP No. 3617 of 2017 and

dated 17th March 2022 in WP No. 35161 of 2019 are quashed 23 and set aside and the matters are remanded back to the

Madras High Court for consideration afresh in accordance with

law.

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

No costs.

…….........................J. [B.R. GAVAI]

…….........................J. [SANDEEP MEHTA] NEW DELHI;

APRIL 16, 2024.

24