CONFEDERATION OF AGRICULTURAL vs THE GOVERNENT OF TAMILNADU

WP No. 37329 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 27.10.2026
Pronounced on 30.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
WP Nos. 37329 of 2007 , 6979 of 2009 and 2054 of 2017
CNR:{HCMA010148402007}
AND
WMP Nos. 2039 of 2017, 49336, 45550, 45553, 45515, 45517, 49337 and
2054 of 2017
W.P.No.37329 of 2007:
Confederation of Agricultural
Engineers, Rep By its President,
B2 Officials Quarters,
Tamilnadu Agricultural University,
Coimbatore 641 003.
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The Government of Tamilnadu
Rep by its Secretary Agriculture Department,
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Chief Engineer,
Agricultural Engineering Department,
Nandanam, Chenai 600 035.
3. The Tamilandu Public Service
Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai -2
4. A. Rajasekaran
O/o Assistant Executive Engineer,
Agricultural Engineering Department,
487 Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chenani -35
5. S. Manoharan
O/o Assistant Executive Engineer, Agricultural
Engineering Department
__________
Page1 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
487 Anna Saai, Nandanam, Chennai -35.
6. K. Chandrasekaran
O/o Assistant Executive Engineer, Agricultural
Engineering Department,
487 Anna Salai, Nandanam Chennai -35.
..Respondents
WP No. 6979 of 2009
CNR:{HCMA010188022009}
Confederation of Agricultural Engineers.
Rep. by its President,
B2, Officials Quarters,
Tamilnadu Agricultural University,
Coimbatore 641 003.
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The Government Of Tamilnadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Agriculture Department,
Fort St. Grorge, Chennai 600009.
2. The Chief Engineer,
Agriculture Engineering Department,
Chennai 600005.
3. The Tamilnadu Public
Service Commission,
Government Estate, Chennai 60002.
4. S. Sermarajan
5. N.R. Chandrasekar
6. M. Mahendran
7. N. Selvel
8. P. Velumani
9. M.K. Kanchivanam
__________
Page2 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
10.G. Murugan
11.V. Alagirisamy
12.S. Gurusekara Pandian
13.M. Muthirulandi
14.P. Jayaraj
15.P. Nagarajan
16.R. Manivasakam
17.P. Natarajan
18.S. Radhakrishnan
19.R. Kumar
20.R.Rajaram
21.A. Vetrivel
22.S. Dhanapal
23.K. Ramesh
24.P. Murugesan
25.N. Sivakumar
26.M. Chandrasekar
27.K. Sunil
28.M. Devarajan
29.K. Moideen
30.S. Tamilvanan
__________
Page3 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
31.C. Balan
32.U. Ajmalkhan
33.P. Gurusamy
34.R. Kalaiselvan
35.S. Chandrasekaran
36.S. Sellakkanan
37.N. Chandrasekaran
38.R. Ravichandran
39.N. Kumar
40.N. Lakshmikandan
41.J.M. Rajasekar
42.V. Ravichandran
43.K. Muthuramalingam
44.M. Thankam
45.A. Balamurali
46.S. Varghese Jothiraj
47.A. Kesavamoorthy
48.S. Mani
49.S.R. Subramanian
50.M. Lenin Muthu Olivu
51.A. Chokalingam
52.L. Jayaprakash
__________
Page4 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
53.N. Jayaram
54.G. Anantharaman
55.P. Thirumanikumar
56.S. Rajendran
57.T. Karthikeyan
(Respondents 4 To 57 are Assistant Engineers
working under the control of 2nd Respondent)
..Respondent(s)
WP No. 2054 of 2017
CNR:{HCMA014006592014}
Engineering Graduates Association,
Tamilnadu Agricultural Engineering Department,
Rep. by its General Secretary,
487, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-35.
..Petitioners
Vs
1. The Government of Tamilnadu
Rep. by its Agricultural Production
Commissioner and Secretary to Government,
Agriculture Department, Chennai-9
2. The Chief Engineer
Agricultural Engineering Department, 487,
Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-35
3. Tamilnadu Agricultural
Engineers Association,
Rep. by its General Secretary A.Rajasekar,
16, Perumal Street, Anna Salai, Chennai-2
4. A.Rajasekaran,
Upgraded Junior Engineer,
O/o. The Assistant Executive Engineer (AE),
487, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-35
__________
Page5 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
5. M. Prince Muthuraj
Upgraded Junior Engineer,
O/o. The Assistant Executive Engineer (AE),
487, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-35
6. K.Chandrasekaran,
Upgraded Junior Engineer,
O/o. Superintending Engineer (AE)
487, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-35.
(R-3 to 6 also in represntative capacity to
represent the Junior Engineers upgraded from
Assistant Soil Conservation Officers as per
GO.MS.No.479 Agriculture Department dated
16.11.2007)
..Respondents
W.P.No.37329 of 2007: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution
of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
relating to the issue of the impugned G.O.Ms.No. 4709 Agricultural E
engineering (AA3) Department dated 16.11.2007 on the file of 1st respondent
and quash the same in so far as not earmarking 75 of 399 upgraded posts of
junior Engineers for to be filled up by Assistant Engineers through direct
recruitment and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 report to the 3rd
respondent to issue notification for direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers
to fill up the 75 in Tamilnadu Agricultural Engineering Department.
WP No. 6979 of 2009; Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution
of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
pertaining to the issue of G.O.Ms.No.312 Agricultural (AA3) Department dated
27.07.2007 by the 1st respondent and the consequential proceedings issued by
the 2nd respondent in Proc.Nos. Me.Pa.1/41564/07-5 dated 28.07.07,
Me.Pa.1/41564/07-6 dated 28.07.07 and Me.Pa.2/42738/07 dated 30.05.08 and
quash the same and further direct the respondents to replace the Assistant
__________
Page6 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
Engineers appointed by recruitment by transfer in excess of the quota
earmarked for them all these years by appointing Assistant Engineers by Direct
Recruitment within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court and to direct the
respondents 1 and 2 to pay adequate compensation along with the cost of this
litigation to the petitioner.
WP No. 2054 of 2017: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution
of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on
the file of 1st respondent relating to impugned G.O.Ms.No.479 Agricultural
Engineering (AA3) Department 16.11.2007 and also from the file of the 2nd
respondent relating to the issue of his Proceedings No.Me.Pa. 2/ 13328/2008
dated 31.5.2008 and relating to Letter NO.Me. Pa.5/39334/2016 dated
5.12.2016 and quash the same in so far as the said upgradation is considered as
regular promotion enabling the upgraded Junior Engineers to become part of the
cadre strength of the category of Junior Engineer and consequently direct the
respondents 1 and 2 to revert the upgraded Junior Engineers to the category of
Assistant Soil Conservation Officers and to fill up vacancies in the category of
Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers respectively only as per the 75% and
25% quota prescribed under the Special Rules to Tamil Nadu Agricultural
Engineering Service.
For Petitioners: Mr. N. Subramaniyan
In all the writ petitions
For Respondents: Mr.C.P Goutham Govt. Advocate
For RR1 & 2
Mr. Vijay, Standing Counsel
For TNPSC R3
in WP.No.37329 of 2007 and 6979/2009
Mr.P.R.Rajendran For R4 to R6
in WP.No.37329 of 2007 and 2054 of 2016
RR4 to 57 – Dismissed vide court order dated
17.08.2015 in WP.no.6979 of 2009
__________
Page7 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
COMMON ORDER
Since the issue involved in all these cases are one and the same, the same
are disposed by way of this common order.
2. These writ petitions have been filed seeking to quash the
G.O.Ms.No.479 dated 16.11.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.312 dated 27.07.2007 and all
consequential upgradation / appointments of 399 Assistant Soil Conservation
Officers as Junior Engineers as illegal and violative of the 75:25 Rules and
Reservation Act; and to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to
fill up Assistant Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) vacancies by direct
recruitment through TNPSC following roster and reservation.
Case of the Petitioner in W.P. No. 37329 of 2007:
3. (i) The writ petition was filed by the Association, represented by its
President. The writ petitioner submitted that the Association was registered
under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, with Registration No.
166 of 2006. The Association consisted of more than 200 members as on the
date of filing the writ petition, all of whom have been awaiting for employment
for several years. The writ petitioner submitted that an Agricultural Engineering
graduate is entitled to be considered for appointment to the category of
‘Assistant Engineer’ in the Agricultural Engineering Department by following
the reservation and roster as stipulated by the State policy.
__________
Page8 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
(ii) The Special Rules with respect to the Tamil Nadu Agricultural
Engineering Service in respect of the post of ‘Assistant Engineer’ come under
Category V , whereas the category of ‘Junior Engineer’ and other lower
categories are governed by the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural
Subordinate Engineering Service. The petitioner further submitted that
‘Assistant Engineers’ and ‘Junior Engineers’ are posted as ‘Section Officers’ in
the department, and the posts were commonly known as ‘Assistant Engineer’
and ‘Junior Engineer’. The posts involving original/important schemes are filled
up by Assistant Engineers, and the posts of a working nature involving technical
skills are filled up by Junior Engineers. Only for the above said purpose, the
ratio was fixed at 75:25. Insofar as 75% of vacancies arising in both categories
of Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer are concerned, the vacancies are
filled up by Assistant Engineers through direct recruitment, and the balance of
25% vacancies are filled by Junior Engineers through direct recruitment and
promotions from the position of ‘Agricultural Engineering Foreman’.
Originally, 25% of vacancies were filled through direct recruitment.
Subsequently, the Rules were amended in G.O. Ms. No. 533, dated 14.12.2004,
providing for two more methods, viz.:
1. Promotion from Assistant Soil Conservation Officer and recruitment by
transfer from Drill Supervisor.
2. Inspector of Hand Boring Set Grade I and Compressor Drivers.
__________
Page9 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
(iii) For the above said purpose, a roster (Annexure A-10) was prepared as
follows:
1. Direct Recruitment
2. Promotion from Agricultural Engineering Foremen;
3. Promotion from Assistant Soil Conservation Officers;
4. Promotion from Assistant Soil Conservation Officers;
5. Promotion from Assistant Soil Conservation Officers;
6. Promotion from Assistant Soil Conservation Officers;
7. Promotion from Junior Draughting Officers;
8. Recruitment by transfer from drill supervisor;
9. Recruitment by transfer from inspector of hand boring set Grade-1;
10. Recruitment by transfer from compressor drivers.
(iv) In respect of 75% of the vacancies, the rules were once again
modified retrospectively in G.O. Ms. No. 582, dated 09.11.1995, by including
one more method, namely, recruitment by transfer from categories like
Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Junior Draughting Officer, and
Agricultural Engineering Foreman in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Subordinate
Service on seniority basis based on acquiring a B.E. Degree, and the ratio is
fixed as 24:1 from 27.12.1990 and as 91:1 from 09.11.1995.
(v) After all these amendments starting from the year 1995, all vacancies
arising in the category of ‘Assistant Engineer’ were completely filled up by
recruitment by transfer of lower categories and by pre-designation of ‘Junior
Engineers’ on acquiring a B.E. degree, and not even a single vacancy in the
__________
Page10 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
category of Assistant Engineer was filled by direct recruitment through the
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. In view of the above-said facts, even
persons who completed their B.E. degree after several attempts were also
eligible to be appointed as Assistant Engineers, which violates Article 335 of
the Constitution. Consequently, members of the association sent a
representation seeking a direction to fill Assistant Engineer vacancies by direct
recruitment, but no decision was taken.
(vi) However, G.O. Ms. No. 479, dated 16.11.2007, was issued in a
hurried manner, effectively upgrading 399 Assistant Soil Conservation Officers
as Junior Engineers, who possessed only a diploma qualification and completed
21 years of experience, as a one-time measure, which completely violated
statutory rules. The petitioner further contended that the rule of reservation was
not followed, and as such, challenged G.O. Ms. No. 479, dated 16.11.2007,
appointing 399 Assistant Soil Conservation Officers as Junior Engineers.
Case of Respondents 1 & 2
4. (i) The respondents 1 & 2 submit that the writ petition is not
maintainable either in law or on facts. It is the further case of the respondents
that this Court, in an order dated 24.03.2008 in M.P. Nos. 2 to 4 of 2007 in W.P.
No. 37329 of 2007, held as follows:
"The interim order as sought for cannot be granted. However, it is
made clear that hereafter no appointments shall be made in violation
of the ratio of 25% and 75% by direct recruitment. It is open to the
__________
Page11 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
respondents to file a counter for vacating this order. It is also made
clear that any subsequent appointment is subject to the main writ
petition."
(ii) They further submit that the post of ‘Junior Engineer’ (Agricultural
Engineering) in the Agricultural Engineering Department is governed by the
special rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Subordinate Service issued in
G.O. Ms. No. 1760, dated 10.06.1970, read with G.O. Ms. No. 430, dated
22.10.1996, and G.O. Ms. No. 533 (Agricultural Department), dated
09.12.2004. The method of appointment for ‘Junior Engineer’ (Agricultural
Engineering) as per the special rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural
Subordinate Service as existing up to 13.12.2004 was as follows:
"Direct recruitment, or recruitment by transfer from the Madras
Industries Subordinate Service or Madras Engineering Subordinate
Service, or promotion from Category II (Agricultural Engineering
Foreman)."
(iii) The respondent further submitted that regular appointment to the post
of Junior Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) is only made through the TNPSC,
whereas appointment to Junior Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) by
promotion from Category II of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Subordinate
Service, i.e., from the post of Agricultural Engineering Foreman, was made by
the Chief Engineer (Agricultural Engineering).
(iv) The respondent stated that while the post of ‘Junior Engineer’
(Agricultural Engineering) falls under the purview of the TNPSC, the post of
__________
Page12 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
Assistant Soil Conservation Officer (Diploma Holders) did not fall under the
‘feeder’ category. Based upon representations, and after careful examination by
the Government to bring Assistant Soil Conservation Officers and two other
categories under the ‘feeder’ cadre to the post of Agricultural Engineering, the
Government issued relevant orders amending the special rules by bringing the
following six categories as feeder categories:
__________
Page13 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
Rotation 1 Direct Recruitment
Rotation 2 Promotion from the post of Agricultural
Engineering Foreman
Rotation 3 Promotion from the post of Assistant Soil
Conservation Officer
Rotation 4 Promotion from the Post of Assistant Soil
Conservation Officer
Rotation 5 Promotion from the Post of Assistant Soil
Conservation Officer
Rotation 6 Promotion from the Post of Assistant Soil
Conservation Officer
Rotation 7 Promotion from the Post of Junior
Draughting Officer
Rotation 8 Promotion from the Post of Drill
Supervisor
Rotation 9 Recruitment by transfer from the post of
Inspector of Hand Boring Set, Grade - I
Rotation 10 Recruitment by transfer from the post of
Compressor Driver
(v) This is subject to the proviso that the aforesaid 25% post in the total
cadre strength of ‘Junior Engineer’ (Agricultural Engineering) and ‘Assistant
Engineer’ (Agricultural Engineering) taken together shall be reserved for
appointment by the above-said method. The respondent in paragraphs 11 and 13
of the counter stated as follows:
‘’11. It is submitted that prior to the issue of the
__________
Page14 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
G.O.Ms.No.479 Agriculture (AA-3) Department dated
16.11.2007 the sanctioned strength of Assistant Engineer
(Agricultural Engineering) / Junior Engineer (Agricultural
Engineering) of Agricultural Engineering Department was 699
Nos. The 399 Numbers of Asst. Soil conservation Officer posts
now upgraded as Junior Engineer (Agricultural Engineering)
vide G.O.MS.No.479 Agriculture Department dated 16-11-2007
can not be added to the total strength of Assistant Engineer and
Junior Engineer put together as the posts upgraded as Junior
Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) is not newly sanctioned
one. But for the up gradation, there is no increase in the total
cadre strength of Assistant Engineer (Agricultural Engineering)
/ Junior Engineer (Agrl.Engg.). Hence the claim of the
petitioner is wrong.
…………………
13. It is submitted that in G.O.Ms.No.479 Agriculture
(AA-3) Department dated 16-11-2007, only the existing 399
post of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer have been upgraded
as Junior Engineer (Agricultural Engineering). It is not the
additional post sanctioned for Assistant Engineer (Agricultural
Engineering) / Junior Engineer (Agricultural Engineering).
Hence 399 upgraded posts of Junior Engineer (Agricultural
Engineering) have to be filled up exclusively by the Assistant
Soil Conservation Officer. It is not the additional post
sanctioned for Assistant Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) /
Junior Engineer (Agricultural Engineering). Hence, 399 posts
of upgraded Junior Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) have
to be filled up exclusively by the Assistant Soil Conservation
__________
Page15 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
Officer. If the said G.O. is not issued there may not be any
additional post for the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Agricultural
Engineering) / Junior Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) and
the persons promoted to the post of Junior Engineer
(Agricultural Engineering) from the post of Assistant Soil
Conservation Officer would have to continue in the post of
Assistant Soil Conservation Officer.’’
(vi) In furtherance of the above, the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the
writ petition.
Case of Respondents 4 to 6
5. In paragraphs 32 and 33 of their counters, respondents 4 to 6 accepted
certain aspects pertaining to this matter. The said paragraphs are extracted
hereunder:
‘’32. In fact the impugned Government order may
kindly be considered as part and parcel of this counter affidavit.
In addition, the counter filed by the Government is also clear in
this context to the following extent :-
"It is submitted that about 598 Assistant Soil Conservation
Officers were working in the Department and they were
stagnating in the said cadre without any promotional
opportunities. Therefore, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural
Subordinate Service were amended in G.O.Ms.No.533,
Agriculture Department dated 14.12.2004 by bringing the post
of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer as one of the feeder
category for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer
__________
Page16 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
(Agricultural Engineering). Due to limited vacancies available
in the post of Junior Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) the
Assistant Soil Conservation Officer who were in large numbers
were stagnating in their service for more than 20 years. In
order to address their sufferings of Assistant Soil Conservation
Officers and taking into account of dispensing the post of Junior
Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) in the department a
proposal was sent to Government for upgrading the post of
Assistant Soil Conservation Officer as Junior Engineer
(Agricultural Engineering), and to fill up the same with
Assistant Soil Conservation Officers who have put in 20 years
of service and also qualified with the Diploma in Engineering,
at the time of their initial appointment. Accordingly,
government in G.O.Ms.No. 479, Agriculture (AA-3) Department
dated 16.11.2007 ordered for upgradation of 399 Assistant Soil
Conservation Officer having Diploma in Engineering and
completed more than 20 years of service in the Agricultural
Engineering Department as Junior Engineer (Agricultural
Engineering) as one time benefit.
It is submitted that prior to the issue of the G.O.Ms.No.479
Agriculture (AA-3) Department dated 16.11.2007 the
sanctioned strength of Assistant Engineer (Agricultural
Engineering)/Junior Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) of
Agricultural Engineering Department was 699 Nos. The 399
numbers of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer posts now
upgraded as Junior Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) vide
G.O.Ms.No.479 Agriculture (AA-3) Department dated
16.11.2007 cannot be added to the total strength of Assistant
__________
Page17 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
Engineer and Junior Engineer put together as the posts
upgraded as Junior Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) is not
newly sanctioned one. But for the upgradation there is no
increase in the total cadre strength of Assistant Engineer
(Agricultural Engineering) / Junior Engineer (Agricultural
Engineering). Hence the claim of the petitioner is wrong.
It is submitted that in G.O.Ms.No.479 Agriculture (AA-3)
Department dated 16.11.2007 only the existing 399 posts of
Assistant Soil Conservation Officer have been upgraded as
Junior Engineer (Agricultural Engineering). It is not the
additional post sanctioned for Assistant Engineer (Agricultural
Engineering). Hence 399 upgraded posts of Junior Engineer
(Agricultural Engineering) have to be filled up exclusively by
the Assistant Soil Conservation Officer. It is not the additional
post sanctioned for Assistant Engineer (Agricultural
Engineering)/Junior Engineer (Agricultural Engineering).
Hence 399 posts of upgraded Junior Engineer (Agricultural
Engineering) have to be filled up exclusively by the Assistant
Soil Conservation Officer. If the said G.O. is not issued there
may not be any additional post for the cadre of Assistant
Engineer (Agricultural Engineering)/ Junior Engineer
(Agricultural Engineering) and the persons promoted to the
post of Junior Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) from the
post of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer would have to
continue in the post of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer."
33. After taking such a decision the following categories of
persons who have completed twenty years of service and above
and further possessing required qualification were upgraded as
__________
Page18 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
Junior Engineers by the impugned Government order. The
persons who were upgraded, to such position are from the level
of the following:-
i) Direct Recruitment
ii) Promotion from the post of Agricultural Engineering
Foreman
iii) Promotion from the post of Assistant Soil Conservation
Officer
iv) Promotion from the post of Assistant Soil Conservation
Officer
v) Promotion from the post of Assistant Soil Conservation
Officer
vi) Promotion from the post of Assistant Soil Conservation
Officer
vii) Promotion from the post of Junior Draughting officer
viii) Promotion from the post of Drill Supervisor
ix) Recruitment by transfer from the post of Inspector of hand
boring set, Grade-I
x) Recruitment by transfer from the post of Compressor Driver.
In fact Government took a policy decision in the interest of
and in the welfare of the Agricultural and farming community
and also felt that these 399 persons have to do additional work
with more responsibilities for the welfare of farmers. It is so
stated in the impugned order to the following effect:-
"Government have examined the proposal of the Chief
Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) in detail and order that
399 Assistant Soil Conservation Officers who have acquired the
__________
Page19 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
qualification of Diploma in Engineer at the time of their initial
appointment and have completed more than 20 years of service
be upgraded as Junior Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) as
one time benefit. It is also ordered that in addition to their
regular work they will attend to additional works of writing
M.Books for the works executed by them apart from preparation
of estimates, preparation of bills and execution of scheme work
such as Land Development and Minor Irrigation implements
supervisory job"
The respondent further contended that only three persons were included
in the writ petition while leaving out other necessary parties, resulting in the
non-joinder of necessary parties, and prayed for the dismissal of the writ
petition.
Case of the Petitioner in W.P. No. 6979 of 2009
6. On the very same set of facts, the petitioner approached this Court
challenging G.O. Ms. No. 312, Agriculture (AA3) Department, dated
27.07.2007, and the consequential proceedings, and further sought to replace
recruitment by transfer with the vacancies earmarked for them over the while
appointing Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment. The respondents filed a
counter in line with the earlier writ petitions.
Case of the Petitioner in W.P. No. 2054 of 2017
7. On the same set of facts, the writ petitioner challenged the subsequent
__________
Page20 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
appointment orders issued by the government in G.O. Ms. No. 479, dated
16.11.2007. The respondents also filed a detailed counter opposing the writ
petition and prayed for its dismissal.
Submissions of the Counsel
8. (i) The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the rule position is
very clear in respect of appointments. As per Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu
Subordinate Engineers Service Rules as amended by G.O. Ms. No. 533, dated
14.12.2004, a 25% quota has to be allocated for ‘Junior Engineers’ to the post
of ‘Assistant Engineer’. Therefore, out of the 75% quota, 91% shall be
appointed by direct recruitment and the balance 9% shall be through in-service
persons who acquired a B.E. degree.
(ii) The petitioners further submitted that there is no dispute with respect
to the rule position. The total cadre strength and persons appointed across
various categories impress upon the Court that the entire rule was violated. The
writ petitioner further submitted that the second respondent wilfully appointed
‘Junior Engineers’ in excess of the 25% quota stipulated under the Rules. They
argued that the upgradation of 399 Junior Engineers is nothing but a promotion,
and the respondent wilfully violated the 25% quota fixed already. The G.O.s
issued for the appointments are completely unreasonable, arbitrary, and mala
fide, and they violate Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Reservation Act, 1993. The
__________
Page21 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
writ petitioner further contended that the impugned order was issued in
complete violation of Article 335 constitutional provisions and prayed for the
allowance of the writ petition.
(iii) Regarding maintainability, the petitioner relied on Article 19(1)(c) of
the Constitution, arguing that forming an association is a fundamental right,
citing Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations v. Union of India [(2006) 8
SCC 399] and also Director of School Education v. Velayutham [(2023) SCC
OnLine MAD 3643], which held that a writ petition is maintainable by an
association in respect of its members for a common cause, they praying for the
writ petition to be allowed.
[
(iv) On the other hand, the respondents submitted that a writ petition filed
by an association whose members are not in service is not maintainable. The
members representing the Confederation of Engineers have no connection with
the respondent office nor are they government employees and are especially
third parties forming an association to duail service matters, which is legally
unsustainable. The respondents further pleaded that the Government made
several direct recruitments of engineers to the post of ‘Assistant Engineers’
from 1995 up to 2025 through the Commission, and therefore there is no cause
of action at this point in time for the writ petitioner association.
__________
Page22 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
(v) The very same argument was adopted by the respondents in W.P. No.
37329 of 2007 and W.P.No.2054 of 2017. The respondents further submitted
that only three of them were impleaded in the writ petition leaving other
necessary persons out, and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petitions on the
grounds of non-joinder of necessary parties.
Discussion and Findings of the Court
9. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents in all the writ
petitions.
10. The R ule position with respect to Assistant Engineer (Agricultural
Engineering) is as follows:
‘’The Rule position
The category of Assistant Engineer is governed by the
Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Engineering
Service. The category of Junior Engineer is governed by the
Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Subordinate
Service.
METHOD OF APPOINTMENT FOR ASSISTANT
ENGINEER (AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING)Rule 2(a)
Class Post Method of recruitment
1 2 3
Class V Assistant Engineering i. By direct recruitment
__________
Page23 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
(Agricultural Engineering) ii. By recruitment by transfer from
among the holders of the post of
Assistant Soil Conservation Officer,
Junior Draughting Officer and
Agricultural Engineering Foreman
in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural
Subordinate Service:
Provided that the Junior Engineer
(Agricultural Engineering) in Tamil
Nadu Agricultural Subordinate
Service on acquiring a degree in
Engineering or a pass in Sections
"A" and "B" of the AMIE shall be re-
designated as Assistant Engineer
(Agricultural Engineering) in the
Tamil Nadu Agricultural
Engineering Service from the date of
following the last date of
examination, notwithstanding the
procedures to be followed for
appointment by recruitment by
transfer.
Rule 2(d)(d)
The proportion for appointment to the vacancies arising in
class V by direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer shall be
91:9.
Hence, the ratio followed for Recruitment by Transfer is 91:9 i.e.
91 for direct recruitment and 9 for Recruitment by Transfer from
the three categories namely, Assistant Soil Conservation Officer,
Junior Draughting Officer and Agricultural Engineering Foreman
in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Subordinate Service.
METHOD OF APPOINTMENT FOR JUNIOR ENGINEER
(AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING)
Rule 2(a)
__________
Page24 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
category Method of appointment
1 2
Class II
Category –
1. Junior Engineer
(Agricultural Engineering)
(1) By direct recruitment; or
(2) Promotion from the following
posts, namely:-
(i) Agricultural Engineering Foreman;
(ii) Assistant Soil Conservation
Officer;
(iii) Junior Draughting Officer; or
(3) Recruitment by transfer from the
following posts, namely :-
(i) Drill Supervisor;
(ii) Inspector of Hand Boring Set,
Grade-I,
(iii) Compressor Driver;
Provided that 25 percent of the posts
in the total strength of Junior Engineer
(Agricultural Engineering) and
Assistant Engineer (Agricultural
Engineering) taken together shall be
reserved for appointment by the above
said methods.
Provided further that the said 25
percent of the reserved posts shall be
filled up by following the rotation as
indicated below:-
Rotation 1 : Direct Recruitment
Rotation 2 : Promotion from the post
of Agricultural Engineering Foreman
Rotation 3 : Promotion from the post
of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer
Rotation 4 : Promotion from the post
of Junior Draughting Officer
Rotation 5 : Recruitment by transfer
from the post of Drill Supervisor
Rotation 6 : Recruitment by transfer
from the post of Inspector of Hand
__________
Page25 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
Boring Set, Grade-I
Rotation 7 : Recruitment by transfer
from the post of Compressor Driver
Provided also that if a rotation is not
filled up due to paucity of hands, that
vacancy may be allotted to the next
rotation in the cyclical order except
for direct recruitment which is covered
under the rule of reservation of
appointments.
The present strength
Total sanctioned strength in Assistant Engineer
/ Junior Engineer put together is 847
Name of the
Sl.No.
post
As per 75:25
the strength
In position Vacancy
must be
1 Assistant
Engineer(AE)
635 346 289
2 Junior
Engineer(AE)
212 74 138
11. In W.P. No. 37329 of 2007, in the year 2007, 399 ‘Soil Conservation
Officers’ were upgraded as ‘Junior Engineers’ as a one-time measure due to
stagnation, spanning 20 years for those employees. The petitioners cannot
question the same by way of an association. If any individual is affected, it is
for them to approach the Court by way of a writ petition. Insofar as an
association is concerned, absolutely there is no cause of action for the
association to maintain a writ petition questioning a G.O. upgrading employees
__________
Page26 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
already working in the department, especially when the writ petitioner
association and its members are not even presently employed in government
service. If the argument of the writ petitioner is accepted, it would open the
floodgates and introduce an entirely new theory of service jurisprudence which
is not recognized either by this Court or by the Supreme Court. The arguments
advanced by the petitioner with respect to Article 19 are legally unsustainable.
Article 19 is merely an enabling provision to form an association and in fact,
does not enable persons to interfere in service matters, especially when the
members are neither employees of the respondent office nor in active
government service.
12. I have also considered the decisions of this Court in W.A. No 235 of
2021 and 2026 MHC 4032 which have held that an association cannot
maintain a common writ petition which pertains to individual grievances of
employees. WA.No. 235 of 2021 has also held that any writ petition pertaining
to individual grievances, such as employment cannot be maintainable while
referring to the dictum in WP.MD.No.7555 of 2012. In view of the same, and
taking into consideration the fact that the members of the respondent association
with actual grievances who are presently unemployed cannot blatantly
challenge G.O.Ms.No.479 dated 16.11.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.312 dated
27.07.2007, which has no standing applicability on them, under the guise of a
“common cause”. However, it is always open to individuals to seek
__________
Page27 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
appointment if they have a legal right. The cause of action pertaining to direct
recruitment and the grievances of third parties cannot be clubbed together, and
this Court does not have the power under Article 226 to decide an such issues
on behalf of every member of an association.
13. The petitioner relied upon a judgment reported in (2006) 8 SCC 399
in the case of Confederation of Ex-servicemen Associations and others Vs.
union of India and others wherein a writ petition was filed by an Ex-
Servicemen's Association:
‘’22. We have given anxious and thoughtful consideration to
the rival contentions raised by the parties. So far as the preliminary
objection regarding maintainability of the petition is concerned, it may
be stated that the petitioner has asserted in the petition that it is a
Confederation of five ex-servicemen Associations formed in
furtherance of common cause. The aims and objects of the
Confederation have also been annexed as set out in the MoU
(Annexure 'P-1'). In the affidavit in reply filed by the Under Secretary
working with the Ministry of Defence, it was stated that he is 'not
aware' of the existence of the petitioner organization. He, however,
stated that the organization 'does not seem' to be registered body to
represent the cause of ex- servicemen. The rejoinder affidavit
unequivocally states that the objection raised by the Union of India is
incorrect. The Confederation was registered under the Societies'
Registration Act, 1860 . Likewise, all Associations which constitute the
Confederation are similarly registered individually. It is further stated
that Air Force Association and Indian Ex-Services League are even
recognized by the Ministry of Defence, Union of India. It, therefore,
cannot be said that the petitioner- Confederation is not registered and
__________
Page28 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
the petition filed is not maintainable.
23. In view of the fact that some of the Associations have been
recognized even by the Ministry of Defence, the deponent ought not to
have raised the objection regarding maintainability of the petition
without ascertaining full facts and particulars. We leave the matter
there holding the petition maintainable. We are also satisfied that the
contention of the respondent is even otherwise not tenable at law. A
similar point came up before a Constitution Bench of this Court in the
well known decision in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India , (1983) 1 SCC
305. There also, one of the petitioners was a Society registered under
the Societies' Registration Act, 1860 . It approached this Court for
ventilating grievances of a large number of old and infirm retirees who
were individually unable to approach a court of law for redressal of
their grievances. This Court held locus standi of the Society
'unquestionable'. In the present case, apart from the fact that a larger
public issue and cause is involved, even individually, all Associations
are registered Associations of ex- servicemen. The petitioner-
Confederation representing those Associations which is also
registered, can certainly approach this Court by invoking the
provisions of Part III of the Constitution. We, therefore, reject the
preliminary objection raised by the respondents and hold that the
petitioner-Confederation has locus standi to file the petition.’’
14. In the aforementioned case, the Supreme Court accepted that the writ
petition was maintainable insofar as the association had nexus with the
respondent department, whereas in the present case, a group of unemployed
individuals have joined hands to form this petitioner association. In view of this
factual difference, the cited judgment is not applicable to the present facts and
circumstances.
__________
Page29 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
15. Reference was also made to the judgment in W.P. No. 10465 of 2020
dated 28.04.2022, wherein para 18 clearly outlines the circumstances under
which an association can file a writ petition. On behalf of persons facing
poverty, disability, socially or economically disadvantageous positions. In the
present case, however, above such conditions are not met and the petitioner
association does not consist of poverty-stricken or socially disadvantaged
people are not before this Court.
16. Insofar as the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 37329 of 2007 is concerned, a
status report filed by the respondents indicates that all the 399 upgraded Junior
Engineers have reached their turn for elevation as ‘Assistant Executive
Engineer’. Many persons were retired / promoted. The present batch of
candidates in the category of ‘Junior Engineer’ has been exhausted and the
subsequent batches are considered for promotion as Assistant Executive
Engineer. Also, the present strength of the Junior Engineers is less than the
stipulated 25% as stated above.
17. Furthermore, a status report filed by the respondents in W.P. No. 6979
of 2009 informs this Court that all the 54 candidates of the 2007 batch who
have been recruited as ‘Assistant Engineers’ have reached their turn for
elevation as Assistant Executive Engineer. In the meanwhile, many persons
have retired or have been promoted. The present batch is exhausted and the
__________
Page30 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
subsequent batches are getting considered for further promotion as ‘Assistant
Executive Engineer’. The status report also indicates that the present strength of
the Assistant Engineers is less than the stipulated 75% as stated above.
18. Insofar as the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 2054 of 2017 is concerned, a
status report filed by the respondents stated that all the 399 upgraded Junior
Engineers have reached their turn for elevation as Assistant Executive Engineer.
Many persons were retired / promoted. The present batch of Junior Engineer is
exhausted and subsequent batch is getting considered for promotion as Assistant
Executive Engineer. Also, the present strength of the Junior Engineers is less
than the stipulated 25% as stated above.
Conclusion
19. In view of these factual aspects, there is absolutely no legal standing
which available for this Court to interfere in this matter based on merits. All the
writ petitions have been filed by an Association whose members are not in
active service of the respondent department cannot maintain the writ petition.
On both counts, all writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently, all the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
30-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
__________
Page31 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
rli
To
1. The Governent Of Tamilnadu
Rep By Its Secretary Agriculture Deparment, Fort St George, Chennai 600
009.
2. The Chief Engineer,
Agricultural Engineering Deparment, Nandanam Chenai 600 035
3. The Tamilandu Public Service
Commission, Rp. By Its Secetary, Chennai -2
4. The Secretary to Government,
Agricultural Production Commissioner and, Agriculture Department,
Chennai-9
5. A.Rajasekar,
General Secretary,
Tamilnadu Agricultural
Engineers Assn., 6, Perumal Street,
Anna Salai, Chennai-2
__________
Page32 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )

WP No. 37329 of 2007
KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J.
rli
Pre-delivery order in
WP Nos. 37329 of 2007 , 6979 of 2009 and 2054 of 2017
30-10-2026
__________
Page33 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:34:29 pm )