MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Executive Instructions Valid for Filling Gaps Until Formal Rules Are Framed: Supreme Court Upholds Promotion of Technical Assistants to Assistant Engineers in Tamilnadu

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment dated April 16, 2024, the Supreme Court of India upheld the rights of Technical Assistants in Tamil Nadu to be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers, endorsing the state’s executive instructions as a valid interim mechanism pending formal rule amendments. The bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta dismissed a series of civil appeals challenging the Madras High Court’s decision which allowed the promotion based on qualifications and service duration.

The appeals arose from a series of executive orders by the Tamil Nadu government starting from 1990, which permitted Technical Assistants who had served for five years and acquired specific engineering qualifications, to be promoted to Assistant Engineers. This executive decision was contested over the years, leading to various legal battles culminating in the Supreme Court’s review.

The Supreme Court reiterated that executive instructions are appropriate for filling legal gaps in the absence of formal statutory amendments. The Court highlighted that such measures are temporary yet necessary to ensure administrative continuity and efficiency.

It was noted that the challenged promotions were regularized under Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, aligning with past precedents where similar appointments were upheld. The Court emphasized that these promotions did not constitute “backdoor entries” but were instead crucial fill-ins for persistent vacancies that the open recruitment process failed to address.

Addressing concerns over equality and efficiency, the judgment clarified that promoted Technical Assistants would not impinge upon the opportunities or promotional avenues of direct recruits. The Court stressed that all promotions were made in strict adherence to the proportions and quotas established by existing rules and did not disrupt the meritocratic foundation of civil service appointments.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, confirming the Madras High Court’s judgment which had favored the regularization of the promotion of Technical Assistants based on longstanding executive orders. The Court underscored that these promotions were in line with both administrative pragmatism and legal precedents aimed at balancing efficiency with fairness in civil service.

Date of Decision: April 16, 2024.

Association of Engineers and Others Etc. vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others Etc.

 

Latest Legal News