Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
M. Sankar – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. By its Chairman, Chennai & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 32157 of 2005
Decided On : 08-08-2023
Writ Petition - Appointment Dispute - Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulation - Regulation 92, Section 79(c) and (k) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code - BP No.26, BP No.31, BP No.59, BP No.17, BP No.10 - The court discussed the eligibility criteria for internal selection to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and the requirement of minimum period of one year regular service after acquiring B.E. Degree or equivalent qualification. The court found that the imposition of such a condition was not in line with the Board's Regulations and allowed the writ petition with a direction for notional promotion to the petitioner from the year 2005.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Board Proceedings and consequential letter in respect of the petitioner alone and further prayed for a direction to post him as Assistant Engineer/Electrical by internal selection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the imposition of a minimum period of one year regular service after acquiring B.E. Degree for internal selection was not in line with the Board's Regulations and directed the respondents to give notional promotion to the petitioner from the year 2005.
Issues: The issues revolved around the eligibility criteria for internal selection to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and the requirement of minimum period of one year regular service after acquiring B.E. Degree or equivalent qualification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the imposition of the condition of one year regular service after acquiring B.E. Degree for internal selection was not in consonance with the Board's Regulations.
Final Decision: The writ petition stands allowed with a direction for notional promotion to the petitioner from the year 2005.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to per B.P.(F.B) No.26 Administrative Branch dated 16.8.2005 of 1st respondent and the consequential letter by 2nd respondent dated 31.8.2005 made in letter No.054161/276/G55/G551/2005-1 quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned and direct the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by Internal selection as applied for by the petitioner in the application dated 26.9.2005.)
1. The petitioner has filed this petition for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus for quashing the Board Proceedings of the 2nd respondent viz., Per.BP (FB) No.26 Administrative Branch dated 16.08.2005 and consequential letter dated 31.08.2005 in respect of the petitioner alone and further prays for a direction to post him as Assistant Engineer/Electrical by internal selection.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Board and perused the documents.
3. The service matrix of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Diploma Holder in Electrical and Electronics Engineering in the year 1996 and he joined the service of the Board on 17.09.1999 as Technical Assistant and joined B.E (Electrical) Degree, as part time course in the year 2002 and completed the course in the year 2005.
4. It appears that before acquiring B.E. qualification in May 2005, the method for recruitment according to Regulation 92 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulation in the post of Assistant Engineer is to be filled up by internal selection and Direct recruitment in the ratio of 1:1. For the purpose of appointment, all internal selection will be made on the basis of the service rendered after acquiring B.E.
5. It appears that as per the counter statement, the (Per).B.P.(FB) No.31, (Adm. Branch) dated 04.12.2000, written examination was added as an additional factor for the recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer/Electrical, both by direct recruitment and internal selection, which resulted in filing of WP No.20157 of 2000. Therefore, in view of the said writ petition, vide another Board Proceedings in (Per.) B.P.No.59 (SB) dated 13.11.2001, the system of conducting written examination has been dispensed with for internal selection and however, vide (Per.)B.P.(FB)No.17 (SB) dated 06.03.2002, further condition that internal selection shall be made based on a minimum length of service rendered after acquiring B.E. Degree or equivalent qualification as may be decided by the Board from time to time, was imposed, as the eligibility criteria.
6. Following BP No.17 dated 06.03.2008, the Board has withdrawn the written examination for internal selection and prescribed the rule that minimum period of one year regular service may be rendered after acquiring B.E. Degree or equivalent qualification for internal selection to the category of Assistant Engineer/Electrical, Mechanical and Civil thereof. The said BP No.26, is under challenge.
7. As stated above, the narration of events leading to the present Board Proceedings i.e. B.P.No.26, is clear and it is stated that the required minimum period of one year regular service after acquiring BE Degree or equivalent qualification, is essential to apply on the date of call letter and also stated that the Board is competent to frame service regulations and to supplement the same; the respondent board is also empowered to issue directions from time to time and the conditions now imposed does not vitiate the service regulation.
8. On factual position, learned standing counsel for the respondent- Board stated that since the petitioner has passed BE Degree in May 2005, in view of the amendment by way of Board Proceedings B.P.No.26 impugned herein, he should serve for one year and thereafter only he could be considered for promotion
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the imposition of additional eligibility criteria for internal selection should be in line with the relevant service regulations and statut....
Writ petitions must demonstrate relevance and violation of service rules to be entertained, particularly when the selection process has concluded.
Appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and eligibility for appointment may be determined based on specific requirements such as registration as an apprentice and sponsorship by the Distr....
The court affirmed that the seniority of direct recruits is determined from their date of appointment and training, and not from when their probation commences, countering the High Court's earlier de....
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review in selection matters and highlights the importance of aligning qualifications and experience with the requirements of a position.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seniority list should be prepared based on the existing orders in force during the relevant period, and the court may consider revising se....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
