Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 971 (MAD)

R. Sakthivel v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

2014-04-23

T.RAJA

body2014
Judgment : 1. Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. Mr. R.Singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.26692 and 29841 of 2013, submitted that all the petitioners have completed graduation in Bachelor of Engineering, hence, they are all eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer in the office of the respondents. Besides, they have undergone one year apprenticeship training in the office of the respondents, as such, they have completed the same successfully between June and August, 2013. They were selected for the said course on merits as per the communal reservation and rotation. Whileso, the respondents have given an advertisement dated 26.05.2013 in 'Deccan Chronicle', inviting the course completed apprentices for the registration of their names in the office of the respondents arbitrarily fixing the date of registration between 27.05.2013 and 03.06.2013 for employment opportunities. Since all the petitioners have completed the course only after 03.06.2013, they were unable to go for registration. Adding further, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even though the petitioners did not complete the apprenticeship before 03.06.2013, they did complete the training before the date fixed for interview i.e. in the month of November, 2013, as per the subsequent notification dated 27.09.2013, therefore, they cannot be denied appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer. Since the fixation of the cut-ff date for interview and appointment was arbitrary, all the petitioners filed the present writ petitions and this Court, by accepting the interim prayer, gave a direction to the respondents to call the petitioners for interview. 3. In his further submission, he has also brought to the notice of this Court an interim order dated 25.10.2013 passed by this Court permitting the petitioners to attend the interview. On receipt of the interim order of this Court, the respondents have also issued subsequent notification dated 27.09.2013 specifically stating that all graduate engineers, who have completed one year apprenticeship training at TANGEDCO/TANTRANSCO before the date of interview, may attend the interview in their respective regions. The interview date was fixed on 18.11.2013, 19.11.2013, 21.11.2013 and 22.11.2013. By citing the above said notification, he contended that admittedly, before the date of interview, all the petitioners have completed their apprenticeship training. The interview date was fixed on 18.11.2013, 19.11.2013, 21.11.2013 and 22.11.2013. By citing the above said notification, he contended that admittedly, before the date of interview, all the petitioners have completed their apprenticeship training. Thus, the respondents, permitted them to take part in the selection and after participating in the interview, the respondents have selected them on merits, however, the respondents withheld the appointment order in view of pendency of these writ petitions, hence, he prayed for a direction to issue appointment order. 4. In support of his submission, he has also relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. v. K.B.N.Visweshwara Rao and others ( (1996) 6 SCC 216 ) for a proposition that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the employment exchange, and employment exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning departments for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition. In addition thereto, the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment shall call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be served and the equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates. But, without following these mode, appointments cannot be made to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical, Mechanical and Civil). In other words, it was contended that the respondents cannot confine the new recruitment through employment exchange alone. On these basis, Mr. R.Singaravelan, learned counsel for petitioner prayed for allowing the writ petitions as prayed for. 5. Mr. T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.30954 of 2013, submitted that the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (“TANGEDCO”) has resolved to appoint 200 Assistant Engineers (Electrical), 50 Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) and 25 Assistant Engineers (Civil), by direct recruitment. Regulation 94 of TNEB Service Regulations mandates the Bachelor of Engineer in Electrical and Electronics Engineering as the minimum educational qualification for the post of Assistant Engineer(Electrical, etc.). Regulation 94 of TNEB Service Regulations mandates the Bachelor of Engineer in Electrical and Electronics Engineering as the minimum educational qualification for the post of Assistant Engineer(Electrical, etc.). Contrary to the Regulation, adding more qualification, the Chief Engineer (Personnel), by notification dated 26.05.2013, has advised that the candidates, who have undergone apprenticeship training for a period of one year, may register their names during the period between 06.06.2013 and 10.06.2013 for the purpose of taking part in the process of selection. As per the above said notification, the petitioners have also completed one year apprenticeship training in TANGEDCO, therefore, they are also entitled to take part in the selection process. However, the the petitioners have not been allowed to register their names, merely because they have completed one year apprenticeship training after the date of notification. 6. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that though the petitioners have sent their representations to the respondents to permit them to register their names and to take part in the selection, there was no response from the respondents, hence, the present writ petition seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to participate in the selection of 200 Assistant Engineers (Electrical) and to consider them for appointment to the said post. 7. It is further contended that, in spite of the fact that all the petitioners have completed the required qualification, they are all deprived of their legitimate right to take part in the selection process, therefore, fixing the cut-off date arbitrarily on 03.06.2013 to complete the one year apprenticeship training to take part in the selection process, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned Senior counsel further contended that during the pendency of these writ petitions, this Court, by order dated 25.10.2013, directed the respondents to call the petitioners for interview. Pursuant to this order, the respondent/TANGEDCO has also issued another notification dated 27.09.2013, inviting eligible candidates for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) and Assistant Engineer (Civil) to register their names for interview to be held on 18.11.2013, 19.11.2013, 21.11.2013 and 22.11.2013, provided they have completed one year apprenticeship at TANGEDCO/TANTRANSCO before the date of interview. Pursuant to this order, the respondent/TANGEDCO has also issued another notification dated 27.09.2013, inviting eligible candidates for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) and Assistant Engineer (Civil) to register their names for interview to be held on 18.11.2013, 19.11.2013, 21.11.2013 and 22.11.2013, provided they have completed one year apprenticeship at TANGEDCO/TANTRANSCO before the date of interview. Pursuant to the notification dated 27.09.2013, since all the petitioners have attended the interview, all of them have been selected and the respondents also issued selection list containing 182 Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by direct recruitment 2013-2014 and in the said list, it has been mentioned that the petitioners' appointments are withheld due to the pendency of these writ petitions, therefore, the cut-off date fixed by the respondents namely 03.06.2013 as per their previous notification dated 26.05.2013 should be quashed and consequently a direction may be given to the respondents to appointment the petitioners as Assistant Engineer (Electrical). 8. In support of his submission, learned Senior counsel has also relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court inState of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Sandhya Tomar and another ( (2013) 11 SCC 357 ) for a proposition that considering candidature of persons by mere calling of names from employment exchange does not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as several other eligible candidates have been deprived of their right to be considered for the post. . 9. In his further submission, learned Senior counsel heavily relying upon yet another judgment of the Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and others ( (1995) 2 SCC 1 ), contended that the respondents, being bound by the Regulation 94 of TNEB Service Regulation, which prescribes the requisite qualification for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), are not entitled to introduce additional qualification, interalia, one year of apprenticeship training to be completed as on 03.06.2013, hence, Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior counsel prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint all the petitioners to the post called for since they have fulfilled the qualification prescribed by Regulation 94. 10. 10. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the impleading applicants / proposed respondents 4 and 5 in M.P.No.4 of 2014 in W.P.No.30954 of 2013, submitted that the applicants 1 and 2, having obtained a Degree in B.E.(Electrical), were sponsored for apprenticeship training through the Board of Apprenticeship Training (Southern Region), Chennai, at the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Dindigul. The first applicant underwent training for a period of one year from 13.07.2009 to 12.07.2010 and the second applicant under went apprenticeship training for a period of one year from 25.08.2008 to 24.08.2009. Thereafter, they have registered their names in the Professional Employment Exchange and also in the Headquarters of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai. Whileso, the respondents Electricity Board, in an effort to fill up the existing vacancies for the post of Assistant Engineer, have requested the list of candidates from the employment exchange and simultaneously, they have also given advertisement through Deccan Chronicle inviting eligible Engineering Graduates, who have completed one year apprenticeship training, to register their names between 27.05.2013 and 03.06.2013. But, all of a sudden, the writ petitioners, who have not completed one year apprenticeship training before 03.06.2013, were also called for interview and after the selection process, the respondents have also published tentative list of 182 selected candidates for the post of Assistant Engineer, wherein the names of the applicants, in this impleading application, were not shown, therefore, the prayer of the writ petitioners that they should be allowed to participate in the interview, even though they have not completed one year apprenticeship training before the cut-off date i.e. 03.06.2013, shall not be accepted by this Court. If for any reason the writ petitioners, who have not completed one year apprenticeship training before the cut-off date i.e. 03.06.2013, are allowed to compete with other eligible candidates, who have sponsored through the employment exchange, the chances of selection of eligible candidates will be diminished. On this basis, he prayed for allowing this application. 11. If for any reason the writ petitioners, who have not completed one year apprenticeship training before the cut-off date i.e. 03.06.2013, are allowed to compete with other eligible candidates, who have sponsored through the employment exchange, the chances of selection of eligible candidates will be diminished. On this basis, he prayed for allowing this application. 11. Per contra, Mrs.R.Varalakshmi, learned standing counsel for respondents submitted that the present writ petitions are not maintainable, since very same and an identical issued raised by the petitioners in all these writ petitions against the respondents with regard to fixing cut-off date for selecting the eligible candidates for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), has been answered against them by the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.19184 of 2013, dated 03.12.2013, holding in favour of the respondents that notification published in the newspaper fixing a cutoff date to complete the apprenticeship training between 10.06.2013 and 22.06.2013 is a basic qualification. Adding further, she stated that as the petitioner therein did not complete the one year apprenticeship training before the cut-off date, his claim to attend the interview was rightly rejected by this Court. By relying upon the above said order of this Court, it is contended that, in the case on hand, the very same respondent/electricity board by advertisement dated 26.05.2013, called upon the eligible candidates, who have completed the apprenticeship training before the cut-off date 03.06.2013, to attend the interview for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) with one year of apprenticeship training, in addition to the basic qualification in the field of engineering. It is also further stated in the notification that the Engineering Graduates, those who have completed one year apprenticeship training in TANGEDCO/TNEB and who have registered their names between 27.05.2013 and 03.06.2013, will be called for interview for the above said post. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the petitioners have completed their apprenticeship only after the crucial date of 03.06.2013, hence, they cannot be allowed to participate in the interview as they do not have the basic qualification for the post. 12. She further contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.38, P & AR (S) Department, dated 30.01.1996 and Regulation No.94 of TNEB Service Regulation, the Graduate Engineers of respective discipline, who had completed their apprenticeship training before the date of notification i.e. 18.05.2013, are eligible.. 12. She further contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.38, P & AR (S) Department, dated 30.01.1996 and Regulation No.94 of TNEB Service Regulation, the Graduate Engineers of respective discipline, who had completed their apprenticeship training before the date of notification i.e. 18.05.2013, are eligible.. But, the petitioners are not eligible for enrolling their names for the interview of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by direct recruitment, since they have completed apprenticeship training in TANGEDCO/TNEB/TANTRANSCO, after the notification date i.e. 18.05.2013. She further contended that fixing the eligibility criteria is a policy decision and it is in vogue for many years, hence, the petitioners have no right to say that the respondents / Electricity Board have violated the rules and regulations. 13. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 14. The respondent / Electricity Board, in order to fill up of 200 posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), 50 posts of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) and 25 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil), issued a letter dated 18.05.2013, to the Assistant Director, Professional and Executive Employment Office, Chennai, requesting for sponsoring a list of qualified candidates to fill up the above said posts. In response to the said notification, the above said authority has sponsored a list of 1025 candidates qualified in the field of BE/AMIE on 11.09.2013. That apart, by another advertisement dated 26.05.2013 published in a news daily (Deccan Chronicle) on 26.05.2013, the respondents proposed direct recruitment to recruit 200 posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), 50 posts of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) and 25 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil), by obtaining the list of candidates from the Professional and Executive Employment Officer, Chennai, informing all the Engineering Graduates, who have completed one year apprenticeship training in TANGEDCO/TNEB, to register their names at the office of the TANGEDCO, Head Quarters Complex, Chennai, from 27.05.2013 to 03.06.2013. In the said advertisement, the respondents also informed that the registered candidates will be called for interview for the above said posts. In the said advertisement, the respondents also informed that the registered candidates will be called for interview for the above said posts. Therefore, it is an undisputed fact that, to fill up the above said posts, the respondents have not only resorted to recruit the existing vacancies through employment exchange, but also issued an advertisement through a news daily 'Deccan Chronicle' on 26.05.2013, having wider publication, inviting eligible candidates to attend the interview, therefore, the question is whether the respondent Electricity Board has complied with the ratio of the Apex Court in K.B.N.Visweshwara Rao's case (cited supra) or not? In the said case, a question came up for consideration as to whether the Government can fill up existing vacancies in the department, by recruiting candidates through the employment exchange and whether this would violate the equality Clause of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India? The Apex Court, while answering issue that recruiting candidates from the employment exchange does not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, has further prescribed some guidelines stating that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority to intimate the employment exchange, and the employment exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning departments for selection strictly in accordance with seniority and reservation rule, and in addition, it was held that the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment should call for the names by publication in the newspapers, having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television; and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be served, since equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates. In this context, it is useful to extract para 6 of the said judgment: “6. Having regard to the respective contentions, we are of the view that contention of the respondents is more acceptable which would be consistent with the principles of fair play, justice and equal opportunity. In this context, it is useful to extract para 6 of the said judgment: “6. Having regard to the respective contentions, we are of the view that contention of the respondents is more acceptable which would be consistent with the principles of fair play, justice and equal opportunity. It is common knowledge that many a candidate is unable to have the names sponsored, though their names are either registered or are waiting to be registered in the employment exchange, with the result that the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names came to be sponsored by the employment exchange. Under these circumstances, many a deserving candidate is deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. Better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the employment exchange, and employment exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning departments for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition. In addition, the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins; and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates.” The above said ratio of the Apex Court distinctly shows that the Government / Departments, before filling up of any vacancy in the department, should not only appoint candidates from the employment exchange on the basis of seniority alone, but should also call for the names by publication in the newspaper having wider circulation and on that basis, it was also held that it is mandatory for the requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the employment exchange, and the employment exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning departments for selection strictly according to seniority and rule of reservation, as per requisition, and in addition, the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment should call for the names by publication in newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins; and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. In the present case, the respondents have admittedly approached the office of employment exchange to sponsor the list of qualified candidates by their letter dated 18.05.2013 for filling up of 200 posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), 50 posts of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) and 25 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) from the Assistant Director, Professional and Executive Employment Office, Chennai. In response to the said letter, the above said authority has also sponsored a list of 1025 qualified candidates in the field of BE/AMIE, on 11.09.2013. 15. In addition thereto, the respondents Electricity Board have also issued notification dated 26.05.2013 in a daily news 'Deccan Chronicle', calling upon the Engineering Graduates, who have completed one year apprenticeship training in TANGEDCO / TNEB, to register their names at the office of the TANGEDCO, Chennai, from 27.05.2013 to 03.06.2013 and the advertisement also further stated that the registered candidates only will be called for interview for the above said post. Admittedly, in the cases on hand, the petitioners have completed their one year apprenticeship training only after 03.06.2013 and therefore, they were unable to register their names and thus, they were not called for interview. In view of this, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions with a prayer to consider them in any of the future vacancies. 16. Admittedly, in the cases on hand, the petitioners have completed their one year apprenticeship training only after 03.06.2013 and therefore, they were unable to register their names and thus, they were not called for interview. In view of this, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions with a prayer to consider them in any of the future vacancies. 16. Pending writ petitions, this Court, by order dated 25.10.2013, directed the respondents to call the petitioners for interview. Thereafter, the respondent Electricity Board issued a notification dated 27.09.2013 inviting all the Graduate Engineers, who have completed one year apprenticeship at TANGEDCO/TANTRANSCO before the date of interview, to attend interview in their respective Regions, fixing the date of interview on 18.11.2013, 19.11.2013, 21.11.2013 and 22.11.2013. For better appreciation, relevant portion of the said notification is extracted hereunder: “ .......... Hence, it is notified that all graduate engineers who have completed one year apprenticeship at TANGEDCO / TANTRANSCO before the date of interview may attend interview in their respective regions/nearly centres on the above dates where they have completed the apprenticeship in the respective branch. They shall bring the training completion certificate issued by TANGEDCO / TANTRANSCO at the time of interview. In this regard, it is informed that their admission to the interview will be subject to the outcome of the W.P.No.26692 of 2013 pending before the High Court of Madras.” 17. Pursuant to the above said notification, the respondents have allowed all the petitioners to participate in the interview. After the selection process was over, the respondent Electricity Board have also selected 182 Assistant Engineers(Electrical), including the petitioners. Even though the petitioners are not eligible to be appointed as per the previous notification dated 26.05.2013, fixing the cut-off date as 03.06.2013, by virtue of the subsequent notification issued on 27.09.2013 inviting all the Graduate Engineers, who have completed one year apprenticeship training before the date of interview i.e. on 18.11.2013, to participate in the interview, they became eligible as they have admittedly completed one year apprenticeship training before the above said interview dates. 18. Therefore, this Court directs the respondents to appoint the petitioners to the post of Assistant Engineer, if they have completed their apprenticeship training before their date of respective interview as per the subsequent notification dated 27.09.2013 and if they are otherwise eligible. 19. In the above terms, the writ petitions are disposed of. No Costs. 18. Therefore, this Court directs the respondents to appoint the petitioners to the post of Assistant Engineer, if they have completed their apprenticeship training before their date of respective interview as per the subsequent notification dated 27.09.2013 and if they are otherwise eligible. 19. In the above terms, the writ petitions are disposed of. No Costs. For the aforesaid reasons, M.P.No.4 of 2014 in W.P.No.30954 of 2013 is dismissed, and M.P.No.2 of 2014 in W.P.No.26692 of 2013 is allowed. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.