The court emphasized the importance of disclosing all relevant facts and the consequences of suppressing material facts, as well as the application of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and the concept of abuse of process of law.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of declaration declaring that the Diploma awarded to the petitioners under Distance Education System approved by Distance Education Council of Indira Gandhi National Open University is valid and equal and to be treated on par with the Diploma awarded through Open University System and also to consider and appoint the petitioners to the post of Technical Assistants by internal selection in the respondent Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. in the light of the Board proceedings in FB No.5 (Administrative Branch) dated 08.04.2011.

2. It must be noted that similar contentions were raised by a set of petitioners in N.Viswanathan and others Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep by its Chairman, Chennai-2 and others reported in (2009) 8 MLJ 1347. In that batch of writ petitions, this court held that it is always left to the Board to adopt whatever Government Orders and that insofar as the Electricity Board was concerned, it has got its own right to approve the qualification. In paragraphs 34 and 35, it was observed as follows:

“(34.) The rules framed by the State Government in respect of the Tamil Nadu Technical Education Subordinate Services, wherein the term "diploma" has been defined as diploma awarded by the State Board Technical Education and Training, Tamil Nadu. The other diplomas unless it is approved by the TNEB, it cannot be contended that even such diplomas will have to be necessarily recognized by them. It is open to the Electricity Board by virtue of its statutory power vested under Section 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 to make service regulations and having made such service regulations, it is also open to them to interpret such regulations consistent with the purpose and object of the Act under which the Board is functioning.

(35.) By rejecting the diploma awarded by the fifth respondent under the open university system as not equivalent to diploma required for the post of Technical Assistant, the Board had not violated any constitutional principle. It is well within its jurisdiction to make such interpretation.”

3. The contentions raised by the petitioners are more or less similar to the contentions raised in the earlier batch of writ petitions. Reliance placed upon the Full Board proceedings No.5, (Administrative Branch) dated 08.04.2011 is misconceived as the said Board proceedings was issued with reference to having minimum educational qualification and persons who are having various degrees through Open University System without going to the school final examinations. In that context, they have adopted the State Governments order in G.O.Ms.No.107, P&AR Department, dated 18.8.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.116, P&AR Department, dated 18.8.2010. That does not take away the earlier board proceedings not accepting the diploma issued by certain deemed universities as an equal qualification prescribed under the Board regulations.

4. It must also be noted that in the affidavit filed in this writ petition sworn to by S.Balasubramani, the first petitioner, he had not stated anywhere that some of the petitioners whose names are described below were parties to the earlier judgment in (2009) 8 MLJ 1347. The names of such persons and the writ petitions filed by them are as follows:

5. If the petitioners have filed similar writ petitions and they were negatived, nothing prevented them from disclosing the same even though they have produced the copy of the earlier order passed in N.Viswanathans case (cited supra). That does not absolve them from disclosing that some of the petitioners in those batch cases are also parties to the present writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of suppression of such fact. In such cases, they ought to have taken the matter on appeal and allowed the matter to become final. If any other points which are open to them to be raised, they ought to have raised it in the earli