T.S.THAKUR, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THESE appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated 4th August, 2009 whereby a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras has allowed Writ Appeals No. 1155, 1156 and 1346 of 2008 setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and dismissed Writ Petitions No.25871 of 2006 and 8925 of 2007 filed by the appellant. The appellant was, at the relevant point of time, working as a Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the Tamil Nadu Public Works Department. He was appointed to the said post by direct recruitment through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1984 -85 and was governed by the Special Rules applicable to Tamil Nadu Engineering Subordinate Service (hereinafter referred to as the "Subordinate Engineering Service"). Aggrieved by the prevalent practice of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) being empanelled for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) against 25% quota reserved for members of the Subordinate Engineering Service, the appellant filed a representation to the Engineer -in -Chief, Public Works Department, praying for discontinuation of the said practice on the ground that such empanelment and consideration of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) was contrary to Special Rules applicable to the Tamil Nadu Engineering Service, which is a State Service (hereinafter referred to as the "State Engineering Service"). The Chief Engineer (General), PWD, however, rejected that representation in terms of a communication dated 18th January, 2006, inter alia, pointing out that seniority assigned to the Junior Engineers (Electrical) in the cadre could not be altered even after they obtained a degree qualification and were re - designated as Assistant Engineer (Electrical). The Chief Engineer was of the view that re -designation of a diploma - holder as an Assistant Engineer (Electrical) after his acquiring a degree qualification was not tantamount to 'promotion' or appointment to State Engineering Service so as to snap his lien in the Subordinate Service of which he is a member.
(3.) DISSATISFIED by the rejection, the appellant submitted yet another representation pointing out that although some vacancies in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers (Electrical) were earmarked for Junior Engineers (Electrical) yet the same were being filled up by appointment of re - designated Assistant Engineers (Electrical). This representation was soon followed by the appellant filing Writ Petition No.25871 of 2006 in which the appellant prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider his case against 25% vacancies reserved for members of the Subordinate Service and a certiorari quashing memorandum dated 18th January, 2006 whereby the Chief Engineer had rejected the representation filed by the appellant. A second representation filed by the appellant on 16th March, 2006 was, in the meanwhile, rejected by the Secretary to the Government, Public Works Department, Chennai, which rejection too was challenged by the appellant in Writ Petition No.8925 of 2007. The appellant prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent to consider and include his name in the panel for appointment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) against the quota reserved for the diploma holder Junior Engineers. By a common order dated 29th August, 2008 a Single Bench of the High Court of Madras allowed both the writ petitions and directed the State Government to apply Rule 5(3)(b), Branch V ­ Electrical of the Special Rules applicable to the State Engineering Service in its letter and spirit and determine the seniority and entitlement of promotion on that basis.;