The judgment emphasizes the importance of adherence to service regulations, consideration of 'live' issues, and the impact of delay and laches on legal claims.

1. These two writ petitions were filed by the petitioners seeking for a direction to the respondents to appoint them to the post of Helpers by giving them preference to their apprenticeship training completed by them prior to 13.9.1988 and also on the basis of the order made in W.A.Nos.1596 and 1597 of 2010, dated 16.11.2010.

2. In the first writ petition, there are four writ petitioners and in the second writ petition, there is only one petitioner. The deponent to the affidavit in the first writ petition as well as the petitioner in the second writ petition are already 44 years. In fact their own claim was that they have completed the training in the Apprenticeship scheme floated by the Electricity Board even before September, 1988 which is 22 years before. The petitioners have completed apprenticeship training and since their completion of apprenticeship in the Board, several recruitments have taken place in the respondent Board. Nowhere they have stated as to what they were doing all these years. The petitioners are not eligible to get an entry into employment in the Electricity Board as they were overaged as per the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations.

3. The first petitioner claiming his right on the basis of the writ petition filed by him along with 12 others in W.P.No.5666 of 2004. In that writ petition, this court directed the respondent Board by an order dated 9.3.2004 to consider appointing them in the next vacancies on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in C.A.No.5285 to 5328 of 1996, dated 3.10.1996 in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs. P.Arul and others.

4. In the second writ petition, the petitioner did not even send any representation. Both writ petitioners only rely upon the judgment of a division bench in W.A.Nos.1596 and 1597 of 2010, dated 16.11.2010. In that case, the division bench had rejected the appeals filed by the Board and directed preference in terms of B.P.242, dated 26.6.1984. Though the Board had contended that the said B.P was superseded by B.P.F.B.60, dated 13.9.1988, this Court had relied upon a judgment of this court in P.Dharmaraja Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another reported in 1989 (1) LLN

105 and directed the Board to consider the case of apprentices who had completed their training of apprenticeship before the crucial date i.e., on 13.9.1988. This was on the ground that no proper explanation was offered by the Board in not granting them appointment. But, however the division bench did not consider the full import of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in P.Arul's case (cited supra) in Civil Appeal Nos.5285 to 5328 of 1996, dated 3.10.1996, even though a reference was made to the Supreme Court decision as found in paragraph 5 of the judgment.

5. In W.P.No.1633 of 2011, even the petitioners' case which was ordered earlier in W.P.No.5666 of 2004, dated 9.3.2004, was only to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in P.Arul's case (cited supra) in Civil Appeal Nos. 5285 to 5328 of 1996. In the second case, there was no reasonable explanation as to what the petitioner was doing since the last 22 years. In fact, a division bench of this court in P.Arul and 237 others Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board reported in 1996 WLR 215 had upheld the claim of trained apprenticeship and had directed the Board to grant appointments to the trained apprentices. Speaking for the division bench, D.Raju, J (as he then was) in paragraph 30 gave the following directions:

"30.For all the reasons stated above, we allow the Appeals and the Writ petitions in the following terms:-

(1) The order of the learned single judge dated 20.12.1994 in W.P.Nos.12091 of 1994 etc., is set aside.

(2) The order of the State Government dated 18.7.1979 as amended by the orders dated 6.12.1980 constitute directions on questions of policy within the purview of Section 78-A (1) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and shall be binding upon, an