Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 3810
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. NAGAMUTHU
T.N. Rajan
Versus
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Represented by its Chairman, Anna Salai, Chennai & Others
W.P.Nos.19596, 33372 of 2002, 8338, 20874 to 20877, 22990 of 2008, 294, 22133, 22982, 23215, 26418 & 26728 of 2009 & W.P.M.P.Nos.1838 of 2008 in W.P.No.19596 of 2002, 49460 of 2002 in W.P.No.33372 of 2002, 1 & 6 of 2008 in W.P.No.8338 of 2008, 2 & 1 to 1 of 2009 in W.P. Nos. 20874 to 20877 of 2008, 1, 2, 3, 5 & 9 of 2009 in W.P. No. 22133 of 2009, 3 & 4 of 2010 in W.P.No.22133 of 2009, 1 to 3 of 2009 in W.P.No.22982 of 2009, 1 to 3 of 2009 in W.P. No. 23215 of 2009, 1 of 2009 in W.P.No.26418 of
Decided On : 31-08-2010
For the Petitioners:R. Yashod Vardhan, Senior Counsel, V. Prakash, Senior Counsel for K. Sudalaikannu, V. Ajoy Khose, L. Chandrakumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:R1 to R3 - S. Ramasamy, Additional Advocate General & Mrs. N. Kavitha, Government Advocate Assisted by A. Selvendran (TNEB), Advocate, R5 - R. Muthukumarasamy, senior counsel for R. Santhanam, R4 - R. Thiyagarajan, Senior Counsel for S.T.S. Murthi, R9 to R11 - C.K. Chandrasekar, Advocates.
Headnote:
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD SERVICE REGULATIONS - APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT ENGINEERS - INTERNAL SELECTION AND DIRECT RECRUITMENT - RATIO OF 1:1 - REDUCTION OF TRAINING PERIOD FOR DIRECT RECRUITS - FIXATION OF SENIORITY - INTER SE SENIORITY - EQUALIZATION METHOD - CARRY FORWARD OF QUOTA - ACTUS CURIAE NEMINEM GRAVABIT - RETROSPECTIVE PROMOTION - PRINCIPLE OF CONSTRUCTIVE RESJUDICATA - BOARD PROCEEDINGS - JURISDICTION AND POWER OF THE BOARD.
Fact of the Case:
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) made service regulations for its employees, including the appointment of Assistant Engineers (AEs) through internal selection and direct recruitment in a 1:1 ratio. In 2000, the Board decided to fill vacancies for AEs. An examination was prescribed for internal selection, which was challenged in court and stayed. Meanwhile, the Board recruited AEs through direct recruitment. The examination for internal selection was later dispensed with, and the petitioners were appointed as AEs in 2002. The Board reduced the training period for direct recruits from two years to three months, and they were brought under the regular time scale of pay in 2001. The petitioners challenged the reduction in training period and the seniority lists published by the Board, which fixed the seniority of direct recruits based on their joining date. They argued that the training period reduction was to favor direct recruits and that their seniority should be fixed from the calendar year 2000, when the selection process began.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the reduction in training period for direct recruits was not to favor them and that their seniority was correctly fixed based on their joining date. The court found that the direct recruits were not appointed as trainees but as regular AEs, and that the training they received was an administrative measure to enhance the quality of their work. The court also held that the petitioners could not demand retrospective promotion from the year 2000 because they were not AEs during that time. The court further held that the Board's action in prescribing an examination for internal selection was illegal and that it was the root cause of the problems faced by the AEs and the Board in fixing seniority. The court dismissed all the writ petitions filed by the petitioners.
Issues: 1. Whether the reduction in training period for direct recruits was to favor them and whether their seniority was correctly fixed based on their joining date? 2. Whether the petitioners could demand retrospective promotion from the year 2000? 3. Whether the Board's action in prescribing an examination for internal selection was illegal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The reduction in training period for direct recruits was not to favor them and their seniority was correctly fixed based on their joining date. The direct recruits were not appointed as trainees but as regular AEs, and the training they received was an administrative measure to enhance the quality of their work. 2. The petitioners could not demand retrospective promotion from the year 2000 because they were not AEs during that time. 3. The Board's action in prescribing an examination for internal selection was illegal and was the root cause of the problems faced by the AEs and the Board in fixing seniority.
Final Decision: All the writ petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed.
1. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board constituted under the Indian Electricity Act, made service regulations namely, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations [hereinafter referred to as "the Service Regulation"] in respect of employees of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Board under Section 79 (c) and (k) of the Electricity (Supply) Act of 1948 which came into force with effect from 1.7.1957. Until the year 1975, the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) was filled up only by means of Direct Recruitment. By the Board Proceeding in B.P.Ms.No.1703, dated 29.11.1975, the regulation was amended under which the employees already in the service of the Board and who have obtained B.E. Degree shall also be eligible for such appointment by means of promotion. The appointment from the existing employees holding B.E. Degree or equivalent qualification is known as "appointment by internal selection". Regulation 92 which speaks of appointment states that appointment to the several classes, divisions and categories specified in Column (1) Annexure I shall be made as specified in the corresponding entry in the Column (2) thereof. As per Annexure-I, the posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) shall be filled up both by internal selection and by direct recruitment in the ratio of 1:1. According to the said regulation, "for the purpose of appointment by internal selection, the selection shall be made on the basis of the service rendered after acquiring the B.E. Degree or the equivalent qualification."
2. During the year 2000, the Board decided to fill up all the vacancies of Assistant Engineers (Electrical). By means of letter in D.O.Letter No.116790/269/G55/ G551/2000-3 dated 3.11.2000, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board informed that an examination would be held on 11.11.2000 to all those eligible and qualified employees who are proposed to be selected for the posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by internal selection. Following the same, the Board issued permanent B.P.(F.B.) No.31, dated 4.12.2000 directing that the internal selection to the posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) shall be made by conducting an examination in future from the existing eligible employees who are qualified. Accordingly, a consequential proceeding requiring the in-service candidates to appear for the examination to be held on 09.12.2000 was issued. The said proceedings dated 3.11.2000 and 28.11.2000 came to be challenged by a batch of existing employees of the Board in W.P. No. 20512/2000. In the said Writ Petition, it was contended that the above proceedings were contrary to the service regulations. It was contended that the service regulations do not provide for any such examination for selection among the employees for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer whereas the proceedings impugned in the said Writ Petition prescribed such an examination. Considering the same, this Court in W.P. M.P. No. 29822/2000 granted interim stay of the selection as against the quota for the employees [internal selection] by order dated 6.12.2000.
3. In the meanwhile, the Board gave advertisement on 27.11.2000 and issued proceedings to appoint A.Es. by direct recruitment as against the quota earmarked for the direct recruits. In W.P.No.20512 of 2000, there was no stay granted by this Court as against the Board to go ahead with the selection and appointment of direct recruits. Accordingly, during the month of December, 2000, as many as 200 Graduate Engineers were appointed as A.Es. by way of direct recruitment.
4. While so, on 13.12.2000, the Board reconsidered the holding of examination for employees by internal selection. On 22.2.2001 yet another Writ Petition was filed in W.P.No.3022/2001 challenging the above proposal to conduct examination for the internal selection. In that, the Board gave an undertaking that 346 posts of A.Es. shall be kept vacant until the fi
