Madras High Court
S.Samsudeen vs The Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 5 January, 2015
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
W.A.Nos.298 of 2021 etc., IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON 25.10.2021 DELIVERED ON 19.11.2021 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.A.Nos.298 of 2016, 1328 of 2015, 1445 of 2015, 214 & 215 of 2016, 436 to 445 of 2016, 461 to 470 of 2016, 968 of 2016, 258 to 263 of 2017, 520 of 2017, 521 of 2017, 2477 to 2481 of 2019, 2483 of 2019, 2624 of 2019, 2625 of 2019, W.P.(MD) Nos.16693 of 2013, 3570 of 2011, 4987 of 2014 and W.P.8660 of 2021 and Connected Miscellaneous Petitions W.A.No.298 of 2016 S.Samsudeen ... Appellant
-vs-
1. The Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Rep by the Chairman, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamilnadu Electricity Board, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
3. The Special Commissioner, Employment and Training, Guindy, Chennai.
4. A.Karthik
5. V.Prakasam Page No.1 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.298 of 2021 etc.,
6. A.Murugesan
7. J.Sathiyamoorthy
8. S.Eswari
9. S.Moorthy
10. K.Boopathi
11. A.Mohamed Sultan Buhari
12. R.Ganesamoorthi
13. G.Nagarajan
14. P. Thangarasu
15. P.Sivasakthi
16. R.Mahendran
17. R.Ramamoorthy
18. S.Karthik
19. P.Nisha
20. R.Nithiyaraja
21. M.Ramesh
22. O.Benita Anthony Mary
23. M.Rajakumar ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.7223 of 2014 dated 05.01.2015.
Appellant in all W.As.
: Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel For Mr.A.R.Suresh Petitioners : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer (in W.P.(MD) Nos.16693 of 2013, 3570 of 2011 and W.P.8660 of 2021) Respondents in all W.A's : Mr.P.Silambanan (R1 & R2) Additional Advocate General For Mr.P.Subramanian ****** COMMONJUDGMENT S.VAIDYANATHAN,J., AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J., The batch of above Writ Appeals have been filed by the unsuccessful petitioners in the Writ Petitions.
Page No.2 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.298 of 2021 etc.,
2. The first respondent Board called for application for the post of Technical Assistant (Electrical) for 950 posts. All the writ petitioners were sponsored through the respective Employment Exchanges. The Advertisement, dated 30.05.2013, that has been challenged by all the Writ petitioners, is an internal communication made by the Board to the apprentices, who were already working in the Board. In the said impugned Advertisement, the Board had requested the interested and qualified candidates to register themselves in the Headquarters before 22.06.2013. It was also informed that they will be called for interview along with other candidates, who were sponsored by the Employment Exchange.
3. All the Writ petitioners, except the petitioner in W.P.No.12348 of 2014 (Writ Appeal No.968 of 2016), have undergone the selection process. They were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. They have underwent certificate verification for 85% of the marks and thereafter they also attended the interview for the remaining 15% of the marks. After having participated in the selection process, they cannot turn around and contend that the very notification issued by the Board itself is bad in law. Page No.3 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.298 of 2021 etc.,
4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that no proper particulars have been furnished in the impugned notification of the Board dated 30.05.2013. A reading of the notification will clearly show that the said notification is not meant for the candidates sponsored through the Employment Exchange and hence, the contention of the appellants that the notification does not reveal any particulars, is devoid of any merits.
5. The counsel for the appellants further contended that more number of apprentices have been selected in the selection process and whereas, only a few sponsored through the Employment Exchange have been selected. That apart, most of the candidates selected through Employment Exchange are falling under the priority category and a very few alone have been selected under the non-priority category. When the candidates were sponsored through the Employment Exchange, the sponsorship itself indicates whether the sponsor is made under the priority quota or under the non-priority quota. Even though, the petitioners / appellants have contended that the priority quota had exceeded 15% of the total selected candidates, no particulars have been placed before this Court to indicate that the priority quota had exceeded 15% of the reservation. Hence, the contention of the appellants that excess reservation has been adopted in favour of the priority quota candidates, which Page No.4 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.298 of 2021 etc., had virtually affected the rights of the non-priority candidates, has no factual basis what so ever. Moreover, the sponsorship of the candidates is made based upon the request made by the Board, and no allegations of any malafides or illegality have been pointed out in the selection of the candidates through priority.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that, there was no transparency in conducting the interview and the mode of allotment of marks to the candidates had not been disclosed. That apart, more number of trained apprentices have been selected than those sponsored through the Employment Exchange.
7. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5285 to 5328 of 1996 dated 03.10.1996, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruit, other things being equal. Moreover, a trained apprentice would not be required to get his name sponsored by any Employment Exchange. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board cannot be found fault in preferring the trained apprentices over the direct recruit in the cases, where the qualifications are found to be equal. Moreover, there is a prayer in one of the Page No.5 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.298 of 2021 etc., writ petitions that there should be a separate selection process for the candidates sponsored through Employment Exchange and they should not be called along with the apprentices. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would clearly point out that all other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over the direct recruit. This dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, will clearly indicate that the direct recruit candidates should compete on par with and along with the apprentices. Hence, the contention that they should be provided with a separate selection process is not legally sustainable.
8. The counsel for the Appellants further contended that the basis followed for selecting the candidates is not known and whether any preference was given to any category also remains a mystery. Since the entire selection process is opaque and the same is liable to be struck down. This contention of the Appellants is very vague and they are not able to point out any specific instance, in which, an unqualified or an ineligible candidate has been selected. Moreover, the assessment of a candidate in an interview is the sole discretion of the Interview Board and unless, the Appellants are able to point out specific instances of any arbitrariness, illegality or malafides on the part of the interview Board, this Court will not have any jurisdiction to interfere into the Page No.6 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.298 of 2021 etc., assessment made by the interview Board and decide about the validity or otherwise of the marks conferred by the said Interview Board.
9. The learned counsel for the Appellants further contended that some of the candidates, who have not even completed 18 years, had been selected. The learned counsel further contended that some of the candidates, who have not completed one year of apprenticeship, have been selected.
10. However, the learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that these cases have already been verified and the selection of those candidates have been cancelled. In view of the specific contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, whatever arbitrariness or illegality that was pointed out in specific cases have already been rectified by the Board.
11. The counsel for the Appellants further contended that, when the learned Single Judge has found some anomalies in the selection process ought to have cancelled the selection and should have issued a direction for a fresh selection. The learned single Judge has considered all the objections of the Writ petitioners separately and has clearly rejected all the contentions of the petitioners / Appellants. Only in order to avoid any dispute in future, certain Page No.7 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.298 of 2021 etc., guidelines have been issued by the learned single Judge. The guidelines issued by the learned single Judge, ipso facto will not indicate that he has given a finding with regard to the validity of the present selection.
12.The counsel for the Appellants further contended that the respondent Board, has filled up the backlog vacancies without issuing any separate advertisement. The said contention has been raised only during the arguments and there is no pleading to that effect in the writ petition. Moreover, the petitioners / Appellants were not able to point out how they are aggrieved by not making Advertisement with regard to backlog vacancies. In fact, the petitioners have been sponsored through Employment Exchange and their main contention in the Writ Petitions was that the apprentices have been given more favourable treatment and the clubbing of the selection process of candidates from the employment exchange as well as the apprentices is bad in the eye of law. When this being the main contention and there is no specific plea or ground in the Writ Petitions with regard to the backlog vacancies, the said contention cannot be considered in these Writ Appeals.
13. The counsel for the Appellants further contended that the selection of more number of apprentices would indicate that the selection process was Page No.8 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.298 of 2021 etc., lacking in transparency. They further contended that, more marks have been awarded to the apprentices than for those candidates sponsored through employment exchange.
14. However, the writ petitioners / Appellants were not able to produce any material to show that the marks were awarded arbitrarily. That apart, it is not that all the apprentices who had applied have been selected. Moreover, 212 persons sponsored through Employment Exchange under the priority quota and 74 candidates sponsored through Employment Exchange under non-priority quota have also been selected. This will clearly indicate that the candidates sponsored through Employment Exchange have also been awarded marks properly and they have also been selected. Hence, this contention of the Appellants is also not sustainable.
15. In view of the above discussion, we are not inclined to interfere in the order of the learned Single Judge, wherein he has issued directions with regard to the manner of notification for the future vacancies and for verification of the documents of all the selected candidates.
16. The counsel for the Appellants further contended that 61 persons have filed these Writ Appeals, who have been sponsored through Employment Page No.9 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.298 of 2021 etc., Exchange. According to the learned counsel for the Appellants, all of them are more than 50 years old and they have registered themselves before the Employment Exchange before 2000. The counsel for the Appellants further contended that more vacancies are available even as on today and the respondent Board could consider accommodating the Appellants in the next recruitment.
17. When the Bench requested the Board to come out with a solution for this issue, the Standing Counsel for the Board filed a memo to the effect that at present, there are 1693 vacancies in Technical Assistant / Electrical posts. The Board has already taken steps to select 300 candidates through Direct Recruitment, after issuing amendments to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations. The memo also states that the Board has taken a policy decision that all the apprentices also should undergo a written examination on par with candidates sponsored through the Employment Exchange and other things being equal, apprentice will be given preference in appointment as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Board has also decided to relax the age to the extent of the actual period of apprentice training undergone in the Board. The said memo is recorded. Page No.10 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.298 of 2021 etc.,
18. The contentions raised by the writ petitioners / Appellants for challenging the Advertisement, selection process, are not sustainable in law and hence, we are not inclined to interfere in the order of learned Single Judge. Moreover, the Appellants have sought for a separate selection process for the Diploma holders excluding the degree holders. The memo filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, indicates that they are taking steps to amend the service regulations to remove the Degree Holders from the process of recruitment for the post of Technical Assistant / Electrical. This will satisfy the grievance of the appellants. Hence, we are inclined to pass the following orders:
i) The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board shall follow the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in Paragraph 10 of the impugned order;
ii) The respondent Board shall issue proper advertisement in the light of the dictum laid down in Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District vs. K.B.N.Vishweshwara and others, reported in 1996 6 SCC 216 and shall strictly follow the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, by issuing advertisement on or before 31.12.2021;Page No.11 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.298 of 2021 etc.,
(iii) The 61 candidates, who have filed the Writ Appeals, shall also be called for the Interview and shall be considered based upon the merits to be assessed by the Interview Board, however, relaxing the age.
(iv) The said process shall be completed on or before 31.03.2022.
(v) In view of the above said order, the counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.16693 of 2013, W.P.No.3570 of 2021 and W.P.No.8660 of 2021, requested that the said writ petitions, in respect of challenge to Regulation 89(d)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, may be dismissed as withdrawn. Hence, these writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn, against the portion of the relief mentioned surpa. The Writ Petitioners may also be treated on par with other 61 candidates.
19. With the above said observations, all these Writ Appeals are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[S.V.N.J.,] [R.V.J.,]
19.11.2021
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
(rap/mrp)
Page No.12 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.298 of 2021 etc.,
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.,
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.,
(rap/mrp)
To
1. The Chairman,
The Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel),
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
3. The Special Commissioner,
Employment and Training,
Guindy, Chennai.
Pre-Delivery Common Judgment in
W.A.Nos.298 of 2016, 1328 of 2015, 1445 of 2015, 214 & 215 of 2016, 436 to 445 of 2016, 461 to 470 of 2016, 968 of 2016, 258 to 263 of 2017, 520 of 2017, 521 of 2017, 2477 to 2481 of 2019, 2483 of 2019, 2624 of 2019, 2625 of 2019, W.P.(MD) Nos.16693 of 2013, 3570 of 2011, 4987 of 2014 and W.P.8660 of 2021 19.11.2021 Page No.13 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis