R.Thamilarasan v. Tamilnadu Electricity Board

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS

DATED : 15.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P.NO.2901 OF 2009 AND M.P.NOS.1 & 2 OF 2009

1. R.Thamilarasan

2. J.Madhesh

3. M.Palani

4. J.Ramesh ... Petitioners .Vs.

1. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by its Chairman,

2. The Chief Engineer - Personnel,

3. The District Employment Officer, Krishnagiri District.

... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent Board to consider the candidature of the petitioners herein for recruitment to the post of Helpers. For Petitioners : Mr.K.Sudalaikannu For R1 & R2 : Mr.P.Subramanian Standing Counsel For R3 : Mr.C.Selvaraj Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

2 .The petitioners herein are aggrieved against their nonselection to the post of Helper in the recruitment process that was conducted in the year 2009. According to them, their names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and they all are ITI certificate holders in electrician trade and have also acquired National Trade Certificate and hence, they should have been given preference during allotments, as against the direct recruits. In support of such claim, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State of Road Transport Corporation & Anr vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh & Ors. reported in 1995 SCC (2) 1 and the decision of this Court in the case of S.Bharani vs. The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited passed in W.P.No.15936 of 2013 etc., batch dated 05.01.2015.

3. In the case of U.P. State of Road Transport Corporation (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the trained apprentices should be given preference over the direct recruits. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: "12.In the background of what has been noted above, we state that the following would be kept in mind while dealing with the claim of trainees to get employment after successful of their training:-

(1) Other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits.

(2) For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this Court in Union of India v. Hargopal, AIR 1987 SC 1227, would permit this.

(3) If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the same would be relaxed in accordance with what is stated in this regard, if any, in the concerned service rule. If the service rule be silent on this aspect, relaxation to the extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone training would be given.

(4) The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the persons trained year wise. The persons trained earlier would be treated as senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentices, preference shall be given to those who are senior."

4. A similar view has been taken in the case of S.Bharani (supra).

5. This Court is of the view that, since the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is in favour of the claim made by the petitioners, they could be given liberty to approach the respondents 1 and 2 herein with the representation seeking for appointment. Since the petitioners made a claim in the year 2009, the respondents 1 and 2 shall not insist on the upper age limit and consider the petitioners' case as a one-time measure.

6. In the light of the above decisions, the petitioners are granted liberty to approach the respondents 1 and 2 and make representation seeking for appointment for the post of Helper. On receipt of such representation, the respondents 1 and 2 shall consider the same in the light of the decisions made in U.P. State of Road Transport Corporation (supra) and S.Bharani (supra) and pass appropriate orders on their own merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of the representation. While passing such orders, the respondents 1 and 2 shall not insist for upper age limit on granting such appointment, as a one-time measure.

7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rst To 1.

The Chairman,

2.

The Chief Engineer - Personnel, 3.

The District Employment Officer, Krishnagiri District.

+1cc to Mr.P.Subramanian, Advocate, S.R.No.17591 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.18346 W.P.NO.2901 OF 2009 GPL(CO) PBS/01/04/2022