Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 306
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
J U D G M E N T
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
rd
dated 3 August 2022, passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras (‘Madras High Court’ for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Narendra Prasad
Date: 2024.04.16
13:03:56 IST
Reason:
short), whereby the writ appeals being W.A. Nos. 82 and 95 of
2015 and 5251 of 2022 filed by the respondents herein were
1
rd
allowed and the order dated 23 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.
nd
2.2 On 2 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
nd
2.3 On 22 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
th
order dated 8 March 1991.
st
2.5 On 31 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
th
2.6 The Tribunal, vide order dated 17 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,
th
vide order dated 6 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.
th
This Court, vide order dated 14 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,
th
issued directions dated 24 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.
th
2.10 Vide Proceedings No. S2(2)/29148/2004-24 dated 27
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
th
appointment order dated 27 February 2006 on the ground
th
that the same was violative of the order dated 17 April 1997
passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3348 of 1994 and also the
th
order dated 6 November 2006 passed by the Madras High
5
Court in WP No. 7523 of 1997. Further, the appointments are
against the statutory rules prescribed.
rd
2.12 Vide order dated 23 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
rd
Judge dated 23 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
rd
impugned judgment dated 3 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.
th
MS. No. 1972 dated 18 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
nd
2 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’
1
Association v. State of Maharashtra and Others 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.
2
Bhatnagar and Others v. Union of India and Others
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.
3
Thirumal v. Ananda Sivakumar and Others .
11. Per contra, Shri V. Prakash, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that a
nd
perusal of G.O. Ms. No. 3037 dated 22 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
th
dated 8 March 1991 in Writ Petition No. 3309 of 1991 in the
case of R. Murali and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu
4
and Another . 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 th
Order dated 8 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.
5
State of Rajasthan and Others , 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
th
Bench of the Madras High Court dated 6 November 2006 in
Writ Petition No. 7523 of 1997 in the case of Association of
Engineers’ v. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal
6
and Others .
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 th
Order dated 6 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
th
High Court by order dated 8 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
th
the order dated 17 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
th
Tribunal, vide order dated 17 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
th
order of the Madras High Court dated 6 November 2006 has
th
also been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14
17
September 2017 in the case of Association of Engineers v.
7
Government of Tamil Nadu and Others .
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
th
refer to Clause 4 of G.O. Ms. No. 155 dated 13 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
th
Government, in its affidavit dated 10 March 2023, has
20
categorically reaffirmed this position.
24. It is further relevant to note the relevant extract from
th
the Proceedings No. S2(2)/2918/2004-24 dated 27 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
8
Authority and Another :
“ 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
rd
orders dated 3 August 2022 in WP No. 3617 of 2017 and
th
dated 17 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