Madras High Court
K.Rajaraman vs Tamil Nadu Generation And ... on 10 January, 2023
W.P.No.15482 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.01.2023
CORAM :
The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P. No.15482 of 2020
and W.M.P.Nos.19326 and 19327 of 2020
1. K.Rajaraman
2. R.Hariharasubramanian .. Petitioners
-vs-
1. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman-
cum-Managing Director, 10th Floor,
NPKRR Maaligai, 144, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer-Personnel,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd., 8th Floor, NPKRR Maaligai,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. ..
Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issue of Writ of Declaration to declare that the selection
list published for Direct Recruitment for the Post of Assistant
Engineer/ Electrical 2017-2019 in Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO) pursuant to Notification
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15482 of 2020
No.01 of 2018 dated 14.02.2018 is vitiated by illegality and
consequently direct the 2nd respondent fit candidates who have
secured high marks against the General Turn points in the 200 point
roster irrespective of their community and fit the petitioners who
have secured 49 marks in the written exam in the Backward Class
turn in the 200 point roster and appoint them for the post of Assistant
Engineer, Electrical and Electronic Engineering 2017-2019.
For Petitioner : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram,
Senior Counsel
for Mrs.C.Uma
For Respondents : Mr.K.Rajkumar,
Stdg. Counsel
*****
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for a declaration to declare that
the selection list published for direct recruitment to the post of
Assistant Engineer/Electrical 2017-2019 in TANGEDCO pursuant to
Notification No.01 of 2018 dated 14.02.2018 is vitiated by illegality
and a consequential direction has been sought to direct the 2nd
respondent to fit candidates who have secured high marks against
the General Turn points in the 200 point roster irrespective of their
community and fit the petitioners who have secured 49 marks in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15482 of 2020
written examination in the Backward Class turn in the 200 point
roster and appoint them in the post of Assistant Engineer, Electrical
and Electronic Engineering 2017-2019.
2. As per the aforementioned recruitment notification, 81 posts
were reserved for general turn. According to the petitioners, as per
the rule of reservation, 39 candidates barring GT Women should have
been selected against the GT turn purely based on merit. But,
according to the petitioners, on scrutiny of the selection list, it shows
that one Mr.Ashutosa Kumar, who secured 88th rank in the merit list,
was selected against the GT turn. Also, one Mr.Dinesh Kumar, who
scored highest marks of 67.33 in the written examination was
selected against the BC turn instead of GT turn. It is also stated by
the petitioner that Vignesh D. who scored 62.67 marks is fitted
against the MBC turn instead of being fitted against GT turn.
3. According to the petitioners, if the first respondent had
understood the scope of rule of reservation and communal roster, the
above anomalies would not have arisen in the selection list and the
petitioners belonging to the BC community who had scored 49 marks
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15482 of 2020
would have got selected against the 30% of the vacancies reserved
for BC candidates. In the aforementioned circumstances, the
petitioners claim that the entire selection list published for the post of
Assistant Engineer in TANGEDCO pursuant to the notification
No.01/2018 dated 14.02.2028 is vitiated by illegality. According to
the petitioners, they are entitled to be appointed as Assistant
Engineer (Electrical/Electronic) in TANGEDCO in view of the
irregularities committed by the respondents in the selection process.
4. According to the petitioners, similarly placed persons,
namely, J.Aravind and M.Sathiyamoorthy, who had also questioned
the selection process under the very same impugned recruitment
notification, had approached the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.
(MD) Nos.12887 and 13092 of 2019 and they were granted the relief
sought for.
5. In the case on hand, a counter has been filed by the
respondents (TANGEDCO), wherein in paragraph 14, it has been
stated as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15482 of 2020
"14. .. the mode of selection for all the Direct
Recruitment/ Internal selection is made based on the
merit of the marks and as per communal roster as per
G.O.Ms.No.65 (P&AR) Dept., dated 27.05.2009 (200
points communal roster) issued by the Government of
Tamil Nadu and as per Regulation 89 of TNEB Service
Regulation, wherein in Regulation 89(3)c of TNEB Service
Regulation, it was specifically stated that selection for
appointment shall be made in the order of rotation
specified in roster. In the 200 points communal roster,
the turn specifically marked for General category are filled
up by the candidates based on the merit of hte marks
irrespective of their community and in the case of turns
marked for BCO, MBC, SC, ST, SCA, BCM then such turns
are filled up based on the merit of the marks from their
respective community. TANGEDCO has not violated any
norms and conditions of the TNEB Service Regulation and
communal roster for preparation of the selection list.
Moreover, there is no specific instruction or orders
received from the Government of Tamil Nadu, to select
General category initially and thereafter to follow the
communal roster as requested by the petitioners. ..."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15482 of 2020
6. Heard Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.Rajkumar, learned standing
counsel appearing for the respondents-TANGEDCO.
7. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents-
TANGEDCO raised the very same contentions that were raised by the
learned Additional Advocate General before the Madurai Bench of this
Court. He would submit that TANGEDCO has its own independent
Service Regulations and what is applicable to the Government
servants of the Government of Tamil Nadu would not apply to
TANGEDCO employees. According to the learned standing counsel,
200 points communal roster was followed and that is how the
impugned selection list was published.
8. This Court is unable to accept the said contention raised by
the learned standing counsel appearing for the TANGEDCO. As
rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners, the turns specifically marked for general category are
filled up by the candidates based on the merit of the marks
irrespective of the community. The issue is no longer res integra.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15482 of 2020
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the decision rendered in State of
Tamil Nadu vs. Shobana reported in 2021 (4) SCC 686, held that
the principle that such of the reserved category candidates who make
it on their own merit have to be adjusted against the general
category vacancies cannot be doubted or argued in view of the catena
of judgments already pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9. In the case on hand, the error committed by the TANGEDCO
is that the meritorious reserved category candidates were not
appointed against general category vacancies. Therefore, the case
projected by the writ petiitoners have to be necessarily accepted.
10. The Madurai Bench of this Court, in respect of the writ
petitions filed by similarly placed persons in W.P.(MD) Nos.12887 and
13092 of 2019 by order dated 12.09.2022 has also taken the very
same view, but however was not inclined to quash the selection list.
This Court is also in agreement with the view taken by the Madurai
Bench of this Court in its order dated 12.09.2022 referred to supra.
The Madurai Bench of this Court followed the order dated 25.04.2022
passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. (MD) No.7110 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15482 of 2020
(A.Ponnar vs. The Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu
Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO),
Chennai), for not quashing the impugned selection list, but instead
granting the relief the petitioners had sought for in the writ petitions.
This Court is also in agreement with the said view.
11. Further, in the instant case, the persons who have been
selected are not party respondents and therefore, this Court cannot
quash the entire impugned selection list which will be detrimental to
their interest.
12. The learned standing counsel appearing for the TANGEDCO
would also submit that the order of the Madurai Bench of this Court
was the subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench, which
was also dismissed on the ground of delay.
13. Therefore, it is clear that the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 12.09.2022 passed in W.P. (MD) Nos.12887 and 13092
of 2019 has attained finality. However, the learned standing counsel
appearing for the respondents (TANGEDCO), after drawing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15482 of 2020
attention of this Court to the following authorities, namely,
a) S.S.Balu vs. State of Kerala and others, (2009) 2 SCC
479;
b) Jagdish Lal and others vs. State of Haryana and others,
(1997) 6 SCC 538; and
c) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Ghanshyam Dass,
(2011) 4 SCC 374;
would submit that the present order should not be treated as a
precedent, as there are so many fence-sitters who have missed the
bus and who have not approached this Court at the earliest point of
time. After perusing the aforementioned judgments, this Court is in
agreement with the apprehension raised by the learned standing
counsel appearing for the respondents-TANGEDCO.
14. Since the respondents have committed an error in the
selection process and the petitioners have been able to convince this
Court that they are entitled for appointment to the subject post,
necessarily the writ petition will have to be disposed of by directing
TANGEDCO to appoint the petitioners to the post of Assistant
Engineer (Electrical/Electronic) within a period of four weeks from
today, without there being any further delay. Their appointment will
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15482 of 2020
date back to 05.02.2020. However, it is made clear that the
petitioners are not entitled to any consequential arrears of pay. It is
also made clear that in view of the decisions relied upon by the
learned standing counsel for the respondents-TANGEDCO, which have
been referred supra, this order shall not be treated as a precedent in
future, as any future claim will be hit by delay and laches.
With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
10.01.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
sra
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15482 of 2020
To
1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd., 10th Floor,
NPKRR Maaligai, 144, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer-Personnel,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd., 8th Floor, NPKRR Maaligai,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15482 of 2020
Abdul Quddhose, J.
(sra)
W.P.No.15482 of 2020
10.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
