Judgment : This appeal has been preferred by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board against the order in W.P.No. l1437 of 1981 allowing that writ petition filed by the respondent herein praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the orders of the appellant in B.P.Ms.No.591 (Admn.), dated 30.9.1981 and the consequential seniority list published by the appellant in its proceedings B.P.Ms.No.629 (Admn.), dated 210. 1981 and quash the same in so far as they affected the respondent and to direct the appellant to absorb the respondent in an equivalent category, grade or cadre, viz., Divisional Regineer with effect from 12. 1973. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this writ appeal areas follows: On 110. 1963, the respondent joined Salem-Erode Electricity Distribution Company as a Junior Engineer and was promoted as an Assistant Engineer from 1. 1967. A further promotion as Engineer-in-charge was also given to the respondent in June, 1973, The Government of Tamil Nadu took over Salem-Erode Electricity Distribution Company under the Tamil Nadu Private Electricity Supply Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and after the take over, the company was transferred to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Under Sec.15 of the Act, provision was made in respect of the existing staff of licensees and thereunder, every person on the staff of the licensee immediately before the vesting date shall become on that date an employee of the Government and upon the transfer under sub-sec.(5) of Sec.6 to the Board, of the property, rights, liabilities and obligations of the Government, become an officer or a servant of the Board and shall hold his office or service under the Government or the Board, as the case may be, on the same terms and conditions and wih the same rights to pension, gratuity and other matters as would have been admissible to him if the undertaking had not vested in the Government and continue to do so unless and until his employment under the Government or the Board is terminated or until his remuneration, terms and conditions of service are duly altered by the Government or the Board. Under Rule 17(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Electricity Supply Undertakings (Acquisition) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), provision was made for absorption and fitment of the staff of the erstwhile licensee company, in the corresponding class, category or grade of the Board’s service. Under that Rule, it was provided that the employees taken over by the Government under sub-sec.(l) of Sec.15 and transferred to the Board under sub-sec.(5) of Sec.6 of the Act, shall be absorbed in the corresponding class, category or grade of the Board’s service, as the case may be. According to the respondent, he was expecting orders regarding absorption in the Board’s service and that only after another person filed a writ petition calling upon the Board to discharge its duty under Sec. 15 of the Act and Rule 17(1) of the Rules, the Board issued the proceedings in B.P,Ms.No.591 (Admn.), dated 30.9.1981 absorbing the respondent as Assistant Divisional Engineer and the inter se seniority of the officers so absorbed was fixed in B.P.Ms.No.621 (Admn.), dated 210. 1981. The respondent claimed that at the lime of the take over of Salem-Erode Electricity Distribution Company, he was an Engineer-in-charge and he should have been fitted in the service of the Board as a Divisional Engineer and not as an Assistant Divisional Engineer and thus aggrieved by his absorption in a lower post and consequent loss of seniority, the respondent approached this Court for relief under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, as stated earlier. Annexed to the affidavit of the respondent were three annexures regarding the duties and responsibilities of an Engineer-in-charge, a comparative statement of the powers exercised by the Engineer-in-charge of the company and the Assistant Divisional Engineer and the Divisional Engineer of the Board and hierarchy of posts in the company and the Board. 3. The appellant, in its counter, put forward the plea that the field experience, qualifications, duties and responsibilities as well as the area of work had all been taken into account before their absorption and the absorption of one Thiru V.Vasudevan, who was an Engineer-in-charge as a Divisional Engineer in the Board was on the basis of his experience, while the respondent had only 10 years of service and was incharge of a distribution system consisting of a lesser number of consumers. With reference to the details furnished by the respondent in the annexures referred to earlier, the Board did not come forward with any specific stand, but merely stated that it reserved its right to file a better counter-affidavit at a subsequent stage, which, however, was not done till the matter was heard. The appellant also maintained that the post of Engineer-in-charge was equated, to the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer on the basis of criteria laid down by the Board, though there was no disclosure of what the criteria was. 4. On a consideration of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the nature of the duties and responsibilities and also the criteria for absorption, the learned Judge took the view that the respondent had been discriminated against in the matter of his fitment into the service of the Board, as he had been treated differently from one Thiru V. Vasudevan who as an Engineer-in-charge in the company taken over, had been absorbed as a Divisional Engineer in the service of the Board and that the post of Divisional Engineer under the Board corresponded to the category of Engineer-in-charge in the service of the licensee company taken over and that the respondent was entitled to be absorbed by the appellant Board in the post of Divisional Engineer (as per the designation then in vague) with effect from 12. 1973 as the question of length of service or the work experience in the bigger power distribution system were not relevant under the Act or the Rules. In the view so taken, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant-Board to absorb the respondent in the post of Divisional Engineer and work out the monetary benefits available to him and fix his seniority appropriately and also give promotions on the basis of such absorption. It is the correctness of the order so passed that is questioned in this writ appeal. 5. It is the correctness of the order so passed that is questioned in this writ appeal. 5. Mr.R.Krishnamurthi, learned counsel for the appellant strenously contended that the fitment of the respondent in the service of the Board was considered in the light of the nature of the duties performed by him in the erstwhile licensee company and the experience gathered by him and that the respondent though he was an Engineer-in-charge, had been found fit to be absorbed only as an Assistant Divisional Engineer and not as a Divisional Engineer, and therefore, no exception could be taken by the respondent to the order passed to that effect by the appellant. On the other hand, Mr.M.R.Narayanaswami, learned counsel for the respondent, pointed out that under the provisions of the Act, Rules as well as the scheme of absorption an Engineer-in-charge in the service of the erstwhile licencee company had to perform more onerous duties and discharge higher responsibilities than even a Divisional Engineer in the Board and that no weightage could be given to experience either under the provisions of the Act or the Rules or even under the scheme of absorption and that in any event, the respondent had also put in more than l0years of service on the date of absorption, though by itself that would not be a criterion. It was also further pointed out by learned counsel that another person Thiru V.Vasudevan, who was also similarly placed like the respondent as an Engineer-in-charge in the service of another erstwhile licensee company, had been absorbed as a Divisional Engineer, while the respondent had not been so absorbed and this demonstrated that discrimination was writ large in the matter of fitment of the respondent and Thiru V.Vasudevan in the service of the Board. Referring to the details given in the annexures I to III in the affidavit, learned counsel submitted that the nature of the duties performed by the Engineer-in-charge is more onerous and responsible than that of the Divisional Engineer and, therefore, even looked at from the point of view of higher responsibility in the discharge of the duties, the respondent ought to have been absorbed into the service of the Board as a Divisional Engineer with effect from 12. 1973 and not as an Assistant Divisional Engineer. 1973 and not as an Assistant Divisional Engineer. Reliance in support of these was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in P.Savits v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1124. 6. In Annexure-I to the affidavit filed by the respondent in support of the writ petition, he had set out the nature of the duties and responsibilities of an Engineer-in-charge in the service of the erstwhile licensee company as on the vesting date under the different heads, like workload, technical, financial and accounts, stores, administration, annual responsibilities, etc. In Annexure-II, the respondent had given a comparative statement of the powers, duties and responsibilities of the Divsional Engineer of the Board and the Engineer-in-charge in the service of the erstwhile licencee company. From columns 3 and 5 of that annexure, it is seen that the financial powers of the Engineer-in-charge in the service of the erstwhile licensee company were unlimited in regard to improvement and also improvement of original works. Even as regards temporary supply, repairs to vehicles, etc., the Engineer-in-charge in the service of the erstwhile licensee company had higher financial powers. In regard to tools and plants, powers of purchase, appointments, administration, billing, stores, etc. the powers and responsibilities of an Engineer-in-charge in the service of the erstwhile licensee company were far higher than that of a Divisional Engineer of the Board. Annexure-III sets out the hierarcy of posts in the Board and also in the erstwhile licenses company and the post of Divisional Engineer in the Board corresponds to that of an Engineer-in-charge. It has also to be borne in mind that the appellant has not in any manner demurred to the contents of the annexures referred to above. From the contents of the annexures. we are clearly of the view that the nature of the powers, duties and responsibilities of the Engineer-in-charge in the service of the erstwhile licensee company was higher and more onerous than that of a Divisional Engineer under the Board and it is perhaps for this reason that under the scheme of absorption, the post of Engineer-in-charge in the service of the licensee company was equated to that of Divisional Engineer in the service of the Board. It is significant that neither under the Act nor under the Rules nor even under the scheme of absorption, any weightage has to be given to experience. It is significant that neither under the Act nor under the Rules nor even under the scheme of absorption, any weightage has to be given to experience. It may be that on the date of absorption, persons in the category of Engineers-in-charge might have put in varying or different years of service but that is not the criterion at all either under the Act or the Rules for the purposes of considering the fitment of the Engineers-in-charge in the service erstwhile licensee companies in the service of the Board. We may also be observe that an Engineer-in-charge of the name of Thiru V.Vasudevan, who was in the service of Tirunelveli-Tuticorin Electrical undertaking had been absorbed into the service of the Board on 12. 1973 as a Divisional Engineer while the respondent, who was also an Engineer-in-charge though in Salem-Erode Electricity Distribution Company, was not so absorbed. It is in this context it has to be remembered that the nature of the powers, duties and responsibilities of Engineers-in-charge under the erstwhile licensee companies is the same but one such Engineer-in-charge viz., the respondent herein had been discriminated against in the matter of absorption into the service of the Board with reference to the other Thiru V.Vasudevan. In this connection, the decision of the Supreme Court in P.Savits v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1124, is relevant. In that case, between the two classes of senior draughtsmen, a distinction was made by providing two different scales of pay based on seniority and the denial of a higher scale of pay to one class of senior draftsmen based on the ground of length of service only, was challenged. In that context, the Supreme Court pointed out that for the same work and same functions, one class of senior draftsmen would get less pay than the other group and when the draftsmen do equal and same work, the classification of the draftsmen into two groups for purposes of different pay based on seniority was violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. In this case also, we find that when the provisions in the Act, Rules or even in the scheme of absorption do not refer to seniority as a criterion at all, it is difficult to uphold that fitment of the respondent, who was an Engineer-in-charge in the service of the erstwhile licensee company as an Assistant Divisional Engineer while Thiru V.Vasudevan, similarly placed had been fitted as a Divisional Engineer. To put it differently, the respondent and Thiru V.Vasudevan who were both holding the post of Engineer-in-charge and discharging) the same duties and responsibilities on the same scale of pay in the service of the erstwhile licensee companies, had been fitted differently in that Thiru V.Vasudevan, had been fitted in a higher post as a Divisional Engineer on a higher scale of pay, while the respondent had been fitted against a lower post on a lesser scale of pay and this action of the, appellant cannot at all be accepted or upheld. We are, therefore, of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Judge. The writ appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.