IMPORTANT POINT
Associations cannot maintain writ petitions for employment on behalf of members; individual eligibility must be assessed per the welfare scheme.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 23.04.2019 passed in W.P. No. 31158 of 2012.

1. The writ order dated 23.04.2019 in W.P. No. 31158 of 2012 is sought to be set aside in the present writ appeal.

2. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is the appellant before us. The respondent-association was registered for the benefit of land losers. The Government acquired land for developing Thermal Power Project plant at North Chennai and lands were acquired in the year 1987. The lands acquired are utilized for developing Thermal Power Project. The scheme was approved for rehabilitation of land losers. The TANGEDCO Board approved the scheme. Under the Scheme, terms and conditions and eligibility are contemplated. The eligible land losers/legal heirs of land losers were provided with appointments based on the applications submitted by the respective land losers. The first respondent-association was formed in the year 2002, after a lapse of about 14 years from the completion of acquisition proceedings. The Association submitted a representation stating that all the members of the association are be appointed in the sanctioned posts in TANGEDCO.

3. Earlier, the first respondent-association filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 8992, 10919, 10920 & 10921 of 2006, seeking employment to one male member to each of 129 families of Ennore Village, 12 families of Chappakkam Village, 39 families of Ennorekuppam, 25 families of Puzhuthivakkam Village, Tiruvallur District. This court passed orders on 11.07.2007, holding that the writ petition by the Association seeking employment is not entertainable. Accordingly, granted opportunity to the members of the Association to submit individual applications, which is to be considered by the TANGEDCO for the purpose of providing employment under the Scheme approved for the benefit of the land losers.

4. The individual applications submitted were considered and Mr. Anand Gopalan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the eligible persons were already appointed in the Board's services.

5. After a lapse of five years, again the first respondent-association filed W.P. No. 31158 of 2012. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition on 23.04.2019, directing the appellant/Board to provide employment to 205 members of the first respondent- association. Thus, the Board preferred the present writ appeal.

6. Mr. Anand Gopalan, learned Counsel for the appellants would contend that the writ petition by the first respondent-association is not entertainable. Employment under the Scheme is to be considered based on the eligibility of the individuals and considering various criteria fixed under the Scheme for providing employment to the land losers. Therefore, the Association cannot maintain the writ petition. On earlier occasion, the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 8992 of 2006 dated 11.07.2007 held that the individual applications should be considered by the Board for providing employment under the Scheme. Thus, the contra view taken by the learned Single Judge in the subsequent writ petition is not in consonance with the principles established.

7. The legal principles are considered by this Court in the case of The Indian Southern Region Postal Pensioners Welfare Association vs. The Union of India, through the Secretary of India to Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare in W.P. (MD) No. 7555 of 2012 dated 14.08.2012. In the said order, this Court considered the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts, which reads as under:

“2. A preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of the writ on the ground, that writ on behalf of the Association in service matters is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by this Court, in W.P. No. 41633 of 2006 decided on 23.11.2011 (Tamil Nadu Public Works Department and Highways Employees Union Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others) and t