V.Poongodi vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
2022 Latest Caselaw 11380 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 11380 Mad
Judgement Date : 29 June, 2022

Madras High Court

V.Poongodi vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 29 June, 2022

W.P.No.548 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :29.06.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

Writ Petition No.548 of 2015

V.Poongodi ... Petitioner

-Vs-

1. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Rep. by its Chairman cum Managing Director,
TANGEDCO,
Chennai - 600 002.

2. The Chief Engineer,
Mettur Thermal Power Station,
Mettur Dam.6,
Salem District.

3. The Additional Chief Engineer,
Mettur Thermal Power Station,
Mettur Dam.6,
Salem District. ... Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling
for the records of the third respondent in his communication Lr.No.ACE
/ C / MTPS-1/LA/F.EMP.Asst(358)/D.No.69/14 dated 11.07.2014 to
quash the same and further direct the 3rd respondent to appoint the
petitioner to the 3rd respondent office.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.No.548 of 2015

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Raja Sekhar

For Respondents : Mrs.S.B.Keerthana (for R1 to R3)
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.

ORDER

The order dated 11.07.2014, rejecting the claim of the writ

petitioner for appointment under the land loser's category is under

challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner states that he was born on 05.03.1994 to one

Mr.Ganesan and Alamelu and the said Mr.Ganesan is the younger

brother of the said Madhammal and the mother of the writ petitioner,

passed away while giving birth to her. The respondents acquired the

land belongs to the said Madhammal, for the purpose of formation of

Thermal Power Project at Mettur. The 4(1) notification was issued on

14.10.1988 and the land was acquired for the said Mettur Thermal Power

Project.

3. The petitioner states that on 06.01.1995, her father Mr.Ganesan

executed an adoption deed in favour of the above said Madhammal and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.548 of 2015

from the date of adoption, the petitioner was brought up and educated by

the said Madhammal. After the completion of the acquisition

proceedings, the award was passed on 20.03.2003. Thus, the petitioner

claims that she is entitled for appointment under the priority category.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the land

belongs to her father and mother Madhammal, was acquired for Thermal

Power Plant by the respondents. While acquiring the said land, the

scheme prevailing was to provide one appointment to the land losers

family. In view of the fact that the petitioner is an adopted daughter of

the said Madhammal, the petitioner is entitled for an appointment under

the priority category. She submitted an application for providing

appointment and the said application was rejected on the ground that the

adopted daughter is not eligible for appointment under the scheme and

further, it is contended that the adoption itself is not valid.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the

adoption was validly made by the said Madhammal. The said

Madhammal has no issues and therefore, she adopted the writ petitioner.

Thus, the adoption which was validly made during the relevant point of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.548 of 2015

time is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of providing

appointment under the priority quota.

6. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the

judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of

V.Ravichandran Vs. R.Ramesh Jayaram & Others, reported in 1998 (3)

LW 822, wherein the validity of adoption was considered by the

Division Bench, as follows:

"22 As held by the Apex Court, the oral evidence of the witnesses deposing about the ceremony of adoption shall be trustworthy and there should be details of the events in ceremony ending with the usual feast following it. In the ceremony it is very essential that the natural parent shall give the child in adoption and the adoptive parent shall declare in the presence of the relatives and friends, who attended the ceremony that they accepted the child in adoption. As stated earlier, the object of this declaration in the midst of members of both the families is to secure due publicity. If no such ceremony is performed, then the intention of the parties cannot be gathered."

7. Relying on the above judgment, the learned counsel for the

petitioner is of the opinion that the order of rejection is untenable and the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.548 of 2015

reasons stated are in violation of the scheme for providing priority to the

land losers.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents

objected the said contentions by stating that in G.O.Ms.No.656, Labour

and Employment Department dated 29.06.1978, the government issued

orders regarding the procedure for grant of employment assistance to the

families displaced on account of acquisition of land. The said

government order was adopted by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in

Board Proceedings MS.No.24 (Secretariat Branch) dated 10.01.1980.

One of the condition for providing employment assistance is that one

member of each family which is displaced on the account of acquisition

of lands for any project of such Public Sector Undertaking etc., provided

that the acquired land should have been the only or major source of

sustenance of that family.

9. In the present case, the land ouster has not been financially

affected consequent to the acquisition of the land or it is only source of

the sustenance of the family. In view of the fact that the above condition

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.548 of 2015

has not been established by the land loser, the case of the writ petitioner

was not considered for providing appointment on priority basis.

10. Further it is stated that the adopted son / daughter of the land

ousters for giving employment assistance can be considered provided

that the adoption is in accordance with provisions of the Hindu

Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. It is seen from the Adoption

Deed that the adoption of the petitioner by the land ouster Madhammal is

not in accordance with Section 8 read with Section 5 & 6 of the Hindu

Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The conditions stipulated in the

said Act under clause (c) of the said Act has not been satisfied in the case

of the writ petitioner. Among other things Clause (c) of section 8 of the

said Act provides as follows:

"(c) who is not married, or if married, whose marriage has been dissolved or whose husband is dead or has completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind, has capacity to take a son or daughter in adoption."

11. This Court is of the considered opinion that the acquisition

proceedings commenced during the year 1988 and it was concluded by

passing an award in the year 2003. Almost 34 years lapsed from the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.548 of 2015

commencement of acquisition proceedings. The process of selection also

underwent many changes in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. During

the relevant point of time, the petitioner could not able to establish that

she is eligible for appointment on priority quota.

12. This being the factum established, this Court, is not inclined to

consider the relief as such sought for in the writ petition. Accordingly,

the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

29.06.2022 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order.