G.Nagaraj v. The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.01.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR W.P.No.28262 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 1.G.Nagaraj 2.L.Porchelvi 3.J.Balachandar 4.A.Manoharan 5.D.Sasikala 6.M.Ashok Kumar 7.V.Kumaravelavan 8.N.Mahendran 9.R.Sankar ... Petitioners Vs.
1.The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 8th Floor, NPKRR Maaligai, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
2.M.Porkodi, AEE/Kanchipuram EDC 3.M.Thamilrasi, AEE/Mettur/EDC 4.R.Thilagar, AE Page No.1 of 5
5.K.Ashokan, AE
...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to first respondent's order in Memorandum No.009925/726/G.55/G.551/2010-1, dated 15.12.2010, to quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to accord appropriate placement by strictly adhering to Regulation 92 and B.P.No.22 dated 17.07.2001 as the private respondents 2 to 5 have failed to satisfy the pre-requisite service qualification on the crucial date of 11.10.2001. For Petitioners :
Mr.L.Chandrakumar For R1 to R5 :
Mr.K.Rajkumar Standing Counsel
ORDER
The petitioners in this writ petition, having made a claim for seniority over and above the respondents 2 to 5, by submitting a representation before the respondents, failed to get any positive response and their claim was rejected through impugned proceedings bearing No.009925/726/G.55/G.551/2010-1, dated 15.12.2010. It is aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
Page No.2 of 5
2.
The petitioners, who were appointed as Assistant Engineer on compassionate grounds between March 2003 to November 2003, intended to claim seniority over the respondents 2 to 5 who were appointed as Assistant Engineer during the year 2002 in terms of the proceedings (Per.) BP (FB) No.22 Adm.Br. dated 17.07.2001. The basis for the petitioners to contend as such is on the ground that the appointment of the respondents 2 to 5 to the post of Assistant Engineer under in-service quota is contrary to the various other Board proceedings. Admittedly, the respondents 2 to 5 were appointed as Assistant Engineers much prior to the petitioners entering into the service of the respondent Board. Hence, in the considered view of this Court, the petitioners herein have no locus standi to question the appointment of the respondents 2 to 5 to the post of Assistant Engineer, as admittedly the petitioners have entered service of the respondent Board much after the respondents 2 to 5 were appointed as Assistant Engineers. 3.
In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition at the instance of the petitioners who do not have any locus standi to file this writ petition. However, the claim of the petitioners Page No.3 of 5
claiming seniority over and above the respondents 2 to 5 is also wholly unsustainable, as admittedly the petitioners herein were appointed much later thatn the appointment of the respondents 2 to 5 to the post of Assistant Engineers.
4.
In the light of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 30.01.2025 Index :
Yes/No Speaking Order :
Yes/No dpa To:
The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 8th Floor, NPKRR Maaligai, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
Page No.4 of 5
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.
dpa W.P.No.2862 of 2012 30.01.2025 Page No.5 of 5