Similarly situated persons should be treated similarly in service matters, and not extending the benefit given to one set of employees to others would amount to discrimination and violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The case of the petitioners are that after completion of the SSLC i.e. 10th standard new pattern public examination, all the petitioners are undergone and completed the course of training at Government Industrial Training Institute at various places and passed the prescribed trade test in the trade of Wireman held in the month of July 1988 and subsequent years and awarded the certificate provisionally to them. They also issued National Trade Certificate by the Government of India.

2. The petitioners have further state that they have successfully completed the course of Apprenticeship Training under the Apprentices Act, 1961 in various places viz., Madras Port Trust and other places. They were also passed the trade test as a regular candidate in the trade of Wireman and was awarded the provisional certificate to them also. In fact, they were issued the certificate of experience in the various fields of works by the Companies, where the petitioners were undergone. They also stated that the Electrical Contractor, where the petitioners were undergone the work have issued the certificates to the effect that all these petitioners were well versed in Domestic electrical wiring, Agri-Pumpset wiring and re-winding works, etc. As per the above certificates and the experience of the works they were eligible and qualified for appointment to the post of ITI Helper (Trainee) in the Respondents Board.

3. The petitioners further submit that the respondents Board invited applications from the eligible candidates for interview to the post of ITI Helper (Trainee) both during 2009 and 2013 and conducted the process of interview. As per the records, it is clearly shows that all the petitioners were attending both the interviews, but they were not selected by the Respondents Board and that the interview process was consisted as (i) Pole climbing (ii) cycling and (iii) oral interview.

4. The petitioners have come forward by saying that when they were expecting that they would be considered favourably by the Respondents Board through reliable sources but they were not appointed, where the other batch met, who attended the interview are selected and appointed as ITI Helper (Trainee) in the Respondents Board.

5. The petitioners further submit that in the above circumstances, nearly 84 candidates who were not selected in the selection process like the petitioners were approached this Court originally and filed the writ petitions. But some of the Writ Petitions were dismissed. Subsequently, they were filed Writ Appeals. Out of the 84, some of the writ petitions were dismissed and others while pendency of the writ petitions and the writ appeals were taken up for hearing. At that time, a compromise memo has been entered into between the 84 petitioners along with the respondents TANGEDCO.

6. As per the compromise memo, 84 persons were appointed in the post of ITI Helper (Trainee), thereafter, only the petitioners came to know about the orders of the Division Bench of this Court through Writ Appeals. When the respondents entered into a compromise memo about the 84 candidates and the same was accepted by this Court, these petitioners are also willing to enter into similar compromise with the respondents Board and accordingly they may be appointed in the post. Therefore, all these 14 petitioners were filed the above writ petitions with a prayer to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to appoint the petitioners to the post of ITI Helper (Trainee) in the Respondents Board with attendant, service and monetary benefits pursuant to the proceedings of the second respondent herein namely the Chief Engineer (Personnel), Chennai, TANGEDCO, bearing No.044771/201/G.57/G.572/2012-12, dated 28.10.2013. But all these petitioners in their affidavits stated that they were not made any request for seniority, service and other benefits as mentioned in the compromise memo in the above Writ Appeal No.81 of 2015.

7. Heard Mr. K.S. Govindaprasad, for Mr. P.R.