Madras High CourtWA(MD)/1279/2018dismissed

K.S. Suresh v. A.Kathiravan,

2025-06-17Honourable Mr Justice S.M. Subramaniam,Honourable Dr.Justice A.D.Maria Clete18 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.06.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE and C.M.P.(MD) Nos.8980, 8981, 8982 & 8983 of 2018 W.P.(MD) No.1279 of 2018:

1.K.S.Suresh 2.K.Kalpana ... Appellants -vs1.A.Kathiravan 2.K.Santhana Marimuthu Raja 3.M.Vennila 4.M.Manikandan 5.A.Navis 6.V.Susai Irudaya Antony Jude 7.V.Sathya Narayana Kumar 8.P.Kanthimathinathan 9.M.Mayilvannan

10.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board rep.by its Chairman 800, Anna Salai Chennai-600 002 11.The Chief Engineer (Personnel) The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 800, Anna Salai Chennai-600 002 12.Manonmaniam Sundaranar University rep.by its Registrar Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli 13.G.Bhas 14.K.R.Elango 15.N.Gayathiri 16.R.Girija 17.N.Govindan 18.R.Herbert 19.S.K.Jahenmohan 20.S.Jayakumar 21.S.Jeya 22.N.Karthi Ganesh 23.K.Karuppasamy 24.K.Kathiravan 25.A.V.Kulandaivel 26.R.Kumaran

27.K.Manjula 28.J.Mathan 29.G.Mohan Gandhi 30.V.Mohanasundaram 31.V.Natarajan 32.S.Neelakandan 33.M.Patrick David 34.M.Perumal 35.G.D.Raja 36.P.Rajasekar 37.R.Rajesh Kannan 38.R.Ramachandran 39.J.Sankar 40.N.Senthilkumar 41.P.Senthilkumar 42.S.Shanmugam 43.G.Shanmugapriyan 44.P.Shanmugasundaram 45.K.Sheik Abdul Khader 46.S.Sugantha

47.K.Sumathi 48.P.Vaikundamani ... Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 03.06.2016, passed in W.P.(MD) No.2344 of 2006, on the file of this Court.

For Appellants :

Mr.T.Sakthi Kumaran For Respondents :

Mr.A.Mohamed Aqil for M/s.Ajmal Associates for R12 No appearance forRR6, 7, 9 to 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 33, 44 & 46 Not ready notice for RR1 to 5, 8, 15 to 17, 20 to 32, 34 to 43, 45, 47 & 48 W.P.(MD) No.1280 of 2018:

1.K.S.Suresh 2.K.Kalpana ... Appellants -vs1.A.Kathiravan 2.K.Santhana Marimuthu Raja 3.M.Vennila 4.M.Manikandan 5.A.Navis 6.V.Susai Irudaya Antony Jude

7.V.Sathya Narayana Kumar 8.P.Kanthimathinathan 9.M.Mayilvannan 10.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board rep.by its Chairman 800, Anna Salai Chennai-600 002 11.The Chief Engineer (Personnel) The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 800, Anna Salai Chennai-600 002 12.Manonmaniam Sundaranar University rep.by its Registrar Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli 13.G.Bhas 14.K.R.Elango 15.N.Gayathiri 16.R.Girija 17.N.Govindan 18.R.Herbert 19.S.K.Jahenmohan 20.S.Jayakumar 21.S.Jeya 22.N.Karthi Ganesh

23.K.Karuppasamy 24.K.Kathiravan 25.A.V.Kulandaivel 26.R.Kumaran 27.K.Manjula 28.J.Mathan 29.G.Mohan Gandhi 30.V.Mohanasundaram 31.V.Natarajan 32.S.Neelakandan 33.M.Patrick David 34.M.Perumal 35.G.D.Raja 36.P.Rajasekar 37.R.Rajesh Kannan 38.R.Ramachandran 39.J.Sankar 40.N.Senthilkumar 41.P.Senthilkumar 42.S.Shanmugam 43.G.Shanmugapriyan

44.P.Shanmugasundaram 45.K.Sheik Abdul Khader 46.S.Sugantha 47.K.Sumathi 48.P.Vaikundamani ... Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 03.06.2016, passed in W.P.(MD) No.2347 of 2006, on the file of this Court.

For Appellants :

Mr.T.Sakthi Kumaran For Respondents :

1.K.S.Suresh 2.K.Kalpana ... Appellants -vs1.A.Kathiravan 2.K.Santhana Marimuthu Raja 3.M.Vennila 4.M.Manikandan

5.A.Navis 6.V.Susai Irudaya Antony Jude 7.V.Sathya Narayana Kumar 8.P.Kanthimathinathan 9.M.Mayilvannan 10.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board rep.by its Chairman 800, Anna Salai Chennai-600 002 11.The Chief Engineer (Personnel) The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 800, Anna Salai Chennai-600 002 12.Manonmaniam Sundaranar University rep.by its Registrar Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli 13.G.Bhas 14.K.R.Elango 15.N.Gayathiri 16.R.Girija 17.N.Govindan 18.R.Herbert 19.S.K.Jahenmohan 20.S.Jayakumar

21.S.Jeya 22.N.Karthi Ganesh 23.K.Karuppasamy 24.K.Kathiravan 25.A.V.Kulandaivel 26.R.Kumaran 27.K.Manjula 28.J.Mathan 29.G.Mohan Gandhi 30.V.Mohanasundaram 31.V.Natarajan 32.S.Neelakandan 33.M.Patrick David 34.M.Perumal 35.G.D.Raja 36.P.Rajasekar 37.R.Rajesh Kannan 38.R.Ramachandran 39.J.Sankar 40.N.Senthilkumar 41.P.Senthilkumar

42.S.Shanmugam 43.G.Shanmugapriyan 44.P.Shanmugasundaram 45.K.Sheik Abdul Khader 46.S.Sugantha 47.K.Sumathi 48.P.Vaikundamani ... Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 03.06.2016, passed in W.P.(MD) No.2349 of 2006, on the file of this Court.

For Appellants :

Mr.T.Sakthi Kumaran For Respondents :

1.K.S.Suresh 2.K.Kalpana ... Appellants -vs1.A.Kathiravan

2.K.Santhana Marimuthu Raja 3.M.Vennila 4.M.Manikandan 5.A.Navis 6.V.Susai Irudaya Antony Jude 7.V.Sathya Narayana Kumar 8.P.Kanthimathinathan 9.M.Mayilvannan 10.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board rep.by its Chairman 800, Anna Salai Chennai-600 002 11.The Chief Engineer (Personnel) The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 800, Anna Salai Chennai-600 002 12.Manonmaniam Sundaranar University rep.by its Registrar Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli 13.G.Bhas 14.K.R.Elango 15.N.Gayathiri 16.R.Girija 17.N.Govindan

18.R.Herbert 19.S.K.Jahenmohan 20.S.Jayakumar 21.S.Jeya 22.N.Karthi Ganesh 23.K.Karuppasamy 24.K.Kathiravan 25.A.V.Kulandaivel 26.R.Kumaran 27.K.Manjula 28.J.Mathan 29.G.Mohan Gandhi 30.V.Mohanasundaram 31.V.Natarajan 32.S.Neelakandan 33.M.Patrick David 34.M.Perumal 35.G.D.Raja 36.P.Rajasekar 37.R.Rajesh Kannan 38.R.Ramachandran

39.J.Sankar 40.N.Senthilkumar 41.P.Senthilkumar 42.S.Shanmugam 43.G.Shanmugapriyan 44.P.Shanmugasundaram 45.K.Sheik Abdul Khader 46.S.Sugantha 47.K.Sumathi 48.P.Vaikundamani ... Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 03.06.2016, passed in W.P.(MD) No.2347 of 2006, on the file of this Court.

For Appellants :

Mr.T.Sakthi Kumaran For Respondents :

Mr.A.Mohamed Aqil for M/s.Ajmal Associates for R12 No appearance forRR6, 7, 9 to 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 33, 44 & 46 Not ready notice for RR1 to 5, 8, 15 to 17, 20 to 32, 34 to 43, 45, 47 & 48

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T [Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.] The intra-court appeals on hand have been instituted by the respondents 40 & 13 respectively in the writ proceedings.

2. The respondents 1 to 9 filed separate writ petitions challenging the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vide BP(FB) No.3 (Administrative Branch), dated 13.02.2006, through which, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board selected 39 employees in the discipline of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Computer Science, Information Technology Engineering and Instrumentation Engineering to the post of Assistant Engineer / Electrical by Internal Selection. The said Board proceedings states that the said internal selection was made as a special case by relaxing the provision of ratio provided in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations as one time measure.

3. The appellants before this Court, who are the beneficiaries, secured promotion under the said Board proceedings as a special case. Their grievance is that the inter-se seniority between the one time promotees and the regular promotees was fixed by placing the appellants herein below the name of the other promotees.

4. The counter affidavit filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was recorded by the learned Single Judge and the writ petitions were disposed of. Thus, the appellants have chosen to file the present writ appeals.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants would mainly contend that the inter-se seniority of the appellants has been erroneously fixed by placing them below the other promotees.

6. However, this Court is of the considered view that the appellants in the event of preferring intra-court appeals cannot seek a new prayer and the Writ Court, in the present case, recorded the statement made by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board that the seniority of the employees will not be disturbed and recording the same, the writ petitions were disposed of.

7. This Court has independently considered the counter affidavit filed by the Chief Engineer (Personnel) TANGEDCO Ltd., wherein it has been stated that the writ petitioners challenged the appointment of 38 persons, who have been appointed as Assistant Engineer / Electrical by way of Internal Selection during February, 2006 as a special case, will become senior to them, due to their earlier appointment is factually not correct. The true fact and the actual position of the appointment of the 38 persons are that they will be

placed automatically below the writ petitioners in the seniority list and it will not affect the writ petitioners' seniority as Assistant Engineer / Electrical. It has been clearly stated that the appellants herein cannot claim seniority over and above the regular promotees as a special case by relaxing the relevant rules and they will be placed below the regular promotees. The said statement was recorded in favour of the writ petitioners / respondents 40 & 13 respectively and accordingly, the writ petitions were disposed of.

8. Subsequently, an inter-se seniority list of the Assistant Engineers / Electrical was published by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vide proceedings dated 20.06.2017. If at all the appellants are aggrieved from and out of the fixation of seniority, they would have challenged the same by filing a separate writ petition. However, the appellants cannot seek any relief relating to seniority in the writ petitions filed by the respondents 40 & 13 herein nor prefer intra-court appeal seeking relief in their favour.

9. As far as the order impugned in the writ petitions is concerned, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board made a submission that the seniority of the writ petitioners are protected and therefore, no adjudication is required and accordingly, the learned Single Judge recording the said submission, disposed of the writ petitions, which would not pave way for the appellants herein to

seek for re-fixation of seniority or to seek a direction fix their seniority over and above the regular promotees. Since the subsequent inter-se seniority list of the Assistant Engineers / Electrical, dated 20.06.2017, remains unchallenged by the appellants herein, they are not entitled for any relief in the present writ appeals.

10. Accordingly, these writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. [S.M.S., J.] [A.D.M.C., J.] 17.06.2025 NCC :

Yes / No Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No krk

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

and DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE , J.

krk W.A.(MD) Nos.1279, 1280, 1281 & and C.M.P.(MD) Nos.8980, 8981, 8982 & 17.06.2025