Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 4836
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
N. Viswanathan & Others
Versus
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep. By its Chairman & Others
W.P.Nos.3307 to 3329, 4959 to 4975, 6435 to 6455, 6900 to 6907, 7184, 7849 to 7852, 13233, 18492 to 18495, 18988 and 19798 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2009
Decided On : 13-11-2009
For the Petitioners:V. Ajoy Khose, Advocate.
For the Respondents:M. Vaidyanathan for TNEB, R. Neelakantan, GA, R5, C.V. Subramanian, Advocate.
The employer has the authority to interpret its regulations and reject diplomas obtained through distance education.
Headnote:
Diploma Equivalency - Employment Dispute - TNEB Regulation 106, UGC Act Section 3 - Summary: The petitioners sought recognition of their diplomas obtained through distance education as equivalent to regular diplomas for the post of Technical Assistant. The court analyzed the interpretation of TNEB Regulation 94, UGC Act Section 3, and AICTE guidelines. The court found that the TNEB had the authority to interpret its regulations and reject the diplomas obtained through distance education. The court dismissed the writ petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought recognition of their diplomas obtained through distance education as equivalent to regular diplomas for the post of Technical Assistant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the TNEB had the authority to interpret its regulations and reject the diplomas obtained through distance education.
Issues: Interpretation of TNEB Regulation 94, UGC Act Section 3, and AICTE guidelines regarding diploma equivalency for the post of Technical Assistant.
Ratio Decidendi: The TNEB had the authority to interpret its regulations and reject the diplomas obtained through distance education.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions.
Heard both sides.
2. In the first batch of writ petitions, the petitioners, who were originally employed as Helpers in the first respondent Electricity Board, have sought for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Technical Assistants (Electrical) and (Mechanical) from the date on which 66 and 21 others respectively were internally selected and appointed by a proceedings, dated 212. 2008 issued by the second respondent (the Chief Engineer (Personnel)) without reference to the clarification issued by the third respondent, the Additional Director of Technical Education, vide his letter, dated 210. 2008.
3. By proceedings, dated 212. 2008, the second respondent published the result of the internal selection to the category of Technical Assistant (Electrical) and (Mechanical) and allotted them to various circles as noted in the Annexure to the order. The appointments were made in terms of Regulation 106 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations. Pending the writ petitions, in many of the cases, this Court, by an interim order, directed the contesting respondents to keep one post vacant in respect of each of the petitioners, out of the 900 posts, which were said to be vacant and to be filled up by the first respondent TNEB.
4. One of the petitioners Mr.Kumaravel from Aroor obtained certain information through the Right To Information Act. By their reply, dated 25. 2009, the TNEB informed that for the post of Technical Assistant (Electrical), sanctioned posts were 2533 and the existing posts were 488. There were vacancies as many as 2045. It is the case of the petitioners that while they were employed by the respondent TNEB, they have applied to undergo a Diploma Course in Electrical and Electronics Engineering under the Distance Education System run by the fifth respondent. They have got permission from the respondents. The course is for a period of two years. Since some of them were ITI certificate holders, they were admitted to the second year of the Diploma course. The petitioners had finished four semesters and have got their diplomas from the fifth respondent, which is deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act. It was the case of the petitioners that they did not have any Polytechnics or other technical institutes nearby their place of work and they were forced to undergo a Diploma course under the distance education system.
5. The respective Superintending Engineers of the Board on 7. 2008 invited applications for the post of Technical Assistant (Electrical) by internal selection from all eligible and qualified employees. The petitioners though applied for being considered, they were not granted any appointment order and only 66 persons were appointed by a communication, dated 212. 2008. It was stated by them that by a letter, dated 210. 2008, the Additional Director of Technical Education, in his reply to a clarification sought for by the second respondent vide his letter, dated 29. 2008, had stated that the diplomas awarded by the fifth respondent cannot be treated on par with the diplomas awarded by the State Board of Technical Education and Training, Tamil Nadu. The petitioners never got any other reply for their non selection.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that under Regulation 94 of the TNEB, no person shall be eligible for appointment to the post and by the method mentioned in annexure III, unless he possesses the qualification prescribed therein. Note 1 appended to the Regulation reads as follows:
"Note 1: In cases where the Regulations prescribe a degree or diploma as a qualification, then a degree or diploma granted by any of the Universities or Institutions recognised by the University Grants Commission for purpose of its grants or any of the Universities recognised by the Government of Tamil Nadu, shall be recognised as the qualification."
(Emphasis added)
7. The amendment made to Annexure III of the TNEB Regulation
