B.Sivakumar v. The Chairman And Managing

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10-08-2016 Coram THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN Writ Petition Nos.27924 and 27925 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.24100 and 24101 of 2016 B.Sivakumar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.27924 of 2016 P.Kumar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.27925 of 2016 Vs.

The Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO, formerly TNEB Limited 144, Anna Salai, Mount Road Chennai-600 002.

The Chief Engineer Personnel TANGEDCO, formerly TNEB Limited 144, Anna Salai, Mount Road Chennai-600 002.

.. Respondents 1&2 in both WPs.

The Superintending Engineer Dharmapuri ED Circle TANGEDCO Dharmapuri-636 705.

.. 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.27924/2016 The Superintending Engineer Thanjavur ED Circle TANGEDCO formerly TNEB Limited No.1, Vallam Road Thanjavur-613 001.

.. 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.27925/2016 Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners to the post of ITI Helper (Trainee) with attendant, service and monetary benefits in the above said post, pursuant to the proceedings of the second respondent, namely, the Chief Engineer (Personnel), Chennai, TANGEDCO, formerly TNEB Limited, bearing No.044771/201/G.57/G.572/2012-12, dated 26.10.2013 and to pass such further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

For Petitioners :Mr.K.S.Govindaprasad in both WPs.

For Respondents :Mrs.R.Varalakshmi in both WPs.

Standing Counsel COMMON ORDER By consent, these Writ Petitions are taken up and disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

2. These Writ Petitions have been filed to issue Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners to the post of ITI Helper (Trainee) with all other attendant, service and monetary benefits, pursuant to the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 28.10.2013.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that though, they were fully qualified for appointment to the post of ITI Helper (Trainee) and they have attended the interview to the said post, they were not selected by the respondent Board. Hence, seeking the relief stated supra, these Writ Petitions have been filed.

4. Mr.K.S.Govindaprasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that earlier, 84 candidates have approached this Court by filing Writ Appeals in W.A.No.81 of 2015 & batch, wherein, they had entered into a compromise arrangement with the respondent Board and pursuant to which, they were appointed in the post of ITI Helper (Trainee). He would further add that the similarly placed persons like that of the petitioners had been given appointment pursuant to the compromise arrangement in the Writ Appeals and hence, they also seek the same relief by way of filing these Writ Petitions. For the proposition that when a particular set of employees is given relief by court, all other identically situated persons should be treated alike by extending same benefit, the learned counsel would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 347, State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava.

5. Mrs.R.Varalakshmi, the learned Standing Counsel, who took notice for the respondents, would submit that once a judgment is passed in respect of particular persons and in that judgment, it is made clear that judgment will not apply to the persons, who did not approach this Court in time, the petitioners are not entitled to the same relief as that of the appellants therein and hence, prays for the dismissal of these Writ Petitions.

6. At the outset, I have to state that in an identical situation, I have dismissed the Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.21495

to 21500 of 2016 and W.P.No.21556 of 2016, by order dated 23.06.2016, wherein, I have clearly held that the once a judgment is passed in respect of particular persons, it will not apply to the persons, who did not approach this Court in time challenging the selection process and that the said compromise arrived at between the appellants therein and the Management is not a judgment in rem and it is a judgment in personam, and therefore, it cannot be treated as a precedent as the said judgment was binding as between the parties on the basis of the consensus reached between them. In view of the same, I have to necessarily hold that nothing survives in these Writ Petitions.

7. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners may be permitted to make a representation in this regard. It is made clear that it is open to the petitioners to seek the similar relief before the authority concerned by way of filing representation and on such representation being made, it is for the authority concerned to consider the same and to decide, whether at all the petitioners are similarly placed as that of the other persons and they are entitled to the relief sought for by them, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 347, State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, and thereafter, to pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance, as expeditiously as possible.

8. These Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

paa Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO, formerly TNEB Limited 144, Anna Salai, Mount Road Chennai-600 002.

2.The Chief Engineer Personnel TANGEDCO, formerly TNEB Limited 144, Anna Salai, Mount Road Chennai-600 002.

3.The Superintending Engineer Dharmapuri ED Circle TANGEDCO Dharmapuri-636 705.

4.The Superintending Engineer Thanjavur ED Circle TANGEDCO formerly TNEB Limited No.1, Vallam Road Thanjavur-613 001.

+ 2 ccs to Mr.K.S.Govindaprasad, Advocate Sr 45810 + 1 cc to Mrs.R.Varalakshmi, Advocate Sr 45713 KR/3/9/16 WP.Nos.27924 and 27925 of 2016