M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.
1. This judgment will dispose of Writ App. Nos. 437 and 408 of 1979 which arise out of W.P. 4819 and 4820 of 1978. The said writ petitions were disposed of by the learned single Judge by a common order.
2. The petitioner in W.P. 4819 of 1978 is one P. Raju who was initially appointed as a Supervisor on 17th December, 1965. He was a diploma holder. The petitioner in W.P. 4820 of 1978 is one G. Ramachandran who was also working as a supervisor. There was a reorganisation of the engineering service with the result that the Supervisors were re-designated as Junior Engineers, and Junior Engineers were re-designated as Assistant Engineers.
3. Recruitment Rules under Art. 309 of the Constitution were promulgated on 29th February 1968; but they were given retrospective effect from 1st March, 1960. The Government by G.O.Ms. No. 1920, Public Works Department, dated 24th December 1977, decided to regularise the employment of the persons temporarily appointed as supervisors. By the proceedings of the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Chepauk, Madras, dated 1st June, 1978, Raju's appointment was regularised with effect from 17th December, 1965, and Ramachandran's appointment as supervisor was regularised with effect from 15th October, 1977. Prior to this regularisation, respondents 3 to 10 had already come to be promoted as Assistant Engineers, re-designated as Assistant Executive Engineers. The common point which was made in both the writ petitions by the two petitioners was that their original temporary appointments having been regularised by the Government, they must now be considered as senior to the other respondents. Particularly it was the case of Raju that since his appointment as Supervisor/Junior Engineer was regularised from 17th December 1965, he would in any case be senior to respondents 3 to 10. The argument is that regularisation must be given its full effect and this must be reflected in the seniority inter se between persons belonging to the same cadre. The learned single Judge rejected this contention holding that regularisation did not affect the promotion which had already been made.
4. In these appeals, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has invited our attention to the Recruitment Rules governing the appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). This appointment can be made either by direct recruitment or recruitment by transfer from the category of Junior Engineer/Supervisor (Electrical), in the Tamil Nadu Engineering Subordinate Service. There are two exceptions to the method of recruitment. Explanation II which is relevant and which is relied upon reads as follows :-
'Explanation II : So far as qualified and suitable candidates are available out of every four vacancies successively arising, the first three vacancies shall be filled in or reserved to be filled in by recruitment by transfer from among the Junior Engineers possessing B.E. degree (Electrical) and the fourth vacancy shall be filled in or reserved to be filled in by recruitment by transfer from the Supervisors (Electrical), possessing the diploma in electrical engineering.'
It is pointed out by the learned counsel that promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) were made by selection during the years 1971-72 to 1979-80, but, except in the years 1977-78 and 1979-80, no Junior Engineer has been selected. The argument now advanced is that since Raju's appointment as supervisor was regularised from 17th December, 1965, he now becomes entitled to be considered for promotion fictionally as from the year 1971-72 onwards. Relying on the Explanation reproduced above, it is pointed out that the vacancies reserved fro the supervisor should have been carried forward to the subsequent years, but in these years no Junior Engineer was found to be fit for selection.
5. So far as the argument that the reservation should be carried forward is concerned, it has to be pointed out that there is no recruitment Rule requiring such a reservation to be carried forward for the succeeding years. The emphasis which is now sought to be placed on the terminology used, that is, 'reserved to be filled in by recruitment by transfer' is not of much assistance, because in the absence of any specific rule requiring the vacancies to be carried forward, the reservation referred to in Explanation 2 must be read as referring to reservation only for that particular year. It will therefore lapse after the year has ended in the absence of any recruitment rule requiring the reserved vacancies to be carried forward. There is also no substance in the argument that since Raju's appointment as Supervisor has been related back to 17th December 1965, he should now be considered for promotion on that footing in preference to respondents 3 to 10 who have already been promoted. It is difficult to see how an order of regularisation of a temporary appointment can affect promotions of candidates made in accordance with the recruitment rule - where certain persons are promoted in accordance with recruitment rules, rights vesting these promotees to hold the post of promotion. This right cannot be taken away by an administrative order relating back the regularisation of a temporary appointee to any earlier date. Such regularisation cannot have the effect of automatically adversely affecting the promotions which have already been made in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules. There is thus no substance in these appeals and they are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in both the appeals.