Sl.No,"Description of Cadre (writ
Petitioner)",Date of entry,"Description of Cadre
(appellant-5
th
respondent)","Date of
entry
1,Overseer Grade II(Civil),18/05/93,Overseer Grade I(Civil),16/02/89
2,Overseer Grade I (Civil),12/05/98,Asst.Engineer(Civil),01/07/97
3,Overseer Grade I(Mech.),28/05/04,Asst.Exe.Engineer (Civil),01/04/17
4,Asst.Engineer (Mech),15/01/05,"Asst.Exe.Engineer(HG)
(Civil)",01/06/20
5,Asst.Exe.Engineer (Mech.),25/01/08,Executive Engineer,03/01/22
qualified to be appointed as Executive Engineer being the senior most person. It is to be noticed that the amendment was approved by the Chancellor,,,,
and was published in the gazette as per Ext.P7 dated 30.09.2003. We note that till then, the post of Assistant Engineer was the feeder category of the",,,,
post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The intention of the legislation was to introduce a new post as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) as a,,,,
promotion post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and the same was to be the feeder category for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer.,,,,
Accordingly, the Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) with an experience of five years' with educational qualification either B.Sc Degree in",,,,
Engineering (Civil) of the Kerala/Calicut University or any other degree equivalent or recognized thereto or Associate Membership Diploma of the,,,,
Institute of Engineers (India) in Engineering are alone eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. Admittedly, the petitioner was working",,,,
as an Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical) for five years'. In the light of the above finding we hold that the direction to delete the word,,,,
“whereverâ€, in the judgment impugned was wholly inappropriate as it would lead to results not contemplated by the amendment besides frustrating",,,,
the very object of the amendment. In as much as the petitioner does not have experience as Assistant Executive Engineer in the civil wing, the writ",,,,
petitioner cannot be considered as eligible for being promoted as Executive Engineer.,,,,
9. The finding of the learned Single Judge that any Assistant Engineer (since been re-designated as Assistant Executive Engineer) of any branch,,,,
having five years' experience is eligible to be considered for promotion as Executive Engineer cannot be accepted. It is to be noticed that even the,,,,
petitioner's case is that the amendment proposed by the General Council of the University was only in respect of Assistant Engineer under Statute,,,,
3(2) of Ext.P5, as per which the feeder category for the post of Executive Engineer is the Assistant Engineer. By Ext.P6 the expression Assistant",,,,
Engineer under Statute 3(2) has been amended as Assistant Executive Engineer(Civil). Therefore, the only inference possible is that the feeder",,,,
category for the post of Executive Engineer will only be Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil).,,,,
10. It is also to be noticed that the challenge to the amendment, Ext.P7 of the year 2003, was made only in the year 2021 by the writ petitioner and his",,,,
challenge on any count ought to have been repelled on the ground of delay and laches alone. We also note the contention of the Kerala Agricultural,,,,
University is that the duty of the Executive Engineer is to make proposal, supervision and process payments of the civil works of the University under",,,,
their control and this cannot be effectively done by a person from the electronics or mechanical cadre without work experience as Assistant,,,,
Engineer/Assistant Executive Engineer in civil cadre with the requisite experience. At any rate it was not for this Court to choose the qualification as,,,,
preferable or not when the employer has chosen to restrict it only to the Assistant Executive Engineer belonging to the civil wing for promotion post of,,,,
an Executive Engineer. We accordingly hold that the finding in the impugned judgment to the contrary is clearly an error of law liable to be interfered,,,,
with.,,,,
11. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in WA No.110 of 2022, the writ petitioner, is that even as per the notification dated",,,,
22.10.1973, while fixing the qualification for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer it was specified that B.Sc. Degree in Engineering in the",,,,
concerned branch was necessary and thus according to the appellant there was bifurcation of the various branches even at that point of time. This,,,,
argument cannot be accepted as the said stipulation in the qualification was only to identify the person so as to know the branch to which he belongs,,,,
and not for anything else. At any rate, this contention does not improve his case as the same has nothing to do with the qualification required for the",,,,
post of Executive Engineer as held above.,,,,
12. The findings of the learned Single Judge that Ext.P7 amendment would take away the right of the petitioner and similarly situated persons for,,,,
consideration for promotion the post of Executive Engineer cannot be accepted at all. It is trite that no employee has any vested right for promotion to,,,,
the higher category in the absence of any enabling provision in the Statutes and Rules. A reading of Exts.P5 and Ext.P7 cannot lead to a situation,,,,
where any Assistant Executive Engineer other than from the branch civil can aspire for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. The wording of,,,,
the Statute being so, any argument to the contrary from the side of the writ petitioner has to be rejected.",,,,
13. The upshot of the above discussion is that WA No.107 of 2022 at the instance of the 5th respondent in the writ petition is to be allowed, WA",,,,
No.195 of 2022 filed by the Kerala Agricultural University is also to be allowed and the writ appeal filed by the writ petitioner, WA No.110 of 2022 is",,,,
only to be dismissed. Consequently, the findings and directions in the impugned judgment are set aside and the writ petition is also dismissed.",,,,
WA No.107 of 2022 filed by the 5th respondent and WA No.195 of 2022 filed by the Kerala Agricultural University are allowed and the Writ petition,,,,
is dismissed. WA No.110 of 2022 filed by the writ petitioner is dismissed.,,,,
