Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu Cement Corporation Ltd vs Thiruvengidaraj on 5 October, 2023
W.A.(MD) No.907 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.A.(MD) No.907 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.7161 of 2023
1.Tamil Nadu Cement Corporation Ltd.,
L.L.A.Building, 735 Anna Salai
Chennai-600 002
Now shifted to Aavin Illam, 5th Floor
Nandanam, Chennai-35
represented by its Deputy General Manager
presently by Senior Manager (P&A)-FAC
2.Tamil Nadu Cement Corporation Factory
Alankulam, Virudhunagar District
represented by its Deputy General Manager
presently by Unit Head ... Appellants
-vs-
1.Thiruvengidaraj
2.The Special Deputy Collector
and Land Acquisition Officer
Government Factory
Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District
3.The State Government
represented by its Secretary
Fort St.George, Chennai ... Respondents
[Cause title is accepted vide Court Order dated
16.06.2023 made in C.M.P.(MD) No.6932 of 2023]
_______________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.907 of 2023
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 14.11.2022, passed in W.P.(MD) No.5839 of 2013, on the file of
this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.A.Sivaji
For Respondents : Ms.N.Krishnaveni, Senior Counsel
for Ms.Chamundi Bose for R1
Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader for R2 & R3
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
The intra-court appeal on hand has been instituted challenging
the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 14.11.2022, passed in W.P.(MD)
No.5839 of 2013.
2. The writ petition filed by the first respondent / writ petitioner
questioning the validity of the rejection order, dated 23.03.2011, passed by the
first appellant herein, was partly allowed on the ground that the first
respondent is the legal heir of the land loser and therefore, he is entitled for
appointment to the post of Technical Executive (Electrical).
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.907 of 2023
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants mainly contended
that the first respondent has not produced relevant documents to establish
that he is the legal heir of the land loser and more so, he is not possessing the
requisite qualification of three years experience as per the notification issued
by the appellant – Cements Corporation, dated 04.08.2010.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterated that the case of
the first respondent was considered under the land losers priority category
and the authorities competent found that the first respondent was not
possessing the requisite experience as contemplated under the notification
and the said facts were not disputed by the first respondent. Thus, there is no
infirmity in the order of rejection impugned in the writ petition.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent
mainly contended that the ancestral lands belonging to the family of the first
respondent were acquired and acquisition was made from the father of the
first respondent and therefore, the first respondent being a legal heir is
entitled for an appointment in the appellant – Cements Corporation under the
priority category. That apart, the first respondent has submitted all relevant
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.907 of 2023
certificates, including educational qualification certificates and he was
possessing two years experience during the relevant point of time and thus,
the appellant – Cements Corporation ought to have considered the case of the
first respondent to appoint him as apprenticeship trainee for one year and
thereafter, induct him as a permanent employee.
6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record.
7. Admittedly, the lands belonged to the family of the first
respondent were acquired for public purpose. It is not in dispute that
compensation due to the erstwhile land owners were settled. Priority in
employment has been provided by way of concession by the appellant –
Cements Corporation. Pursuant to the decision taken to grant priority in the
matter of appointment in favour of the land losers, a notification dated
04.08.2010 was issued. Accordingly, applications were invited from the
eligible candidates of land given cases to fill up one vacant post of Technical
Executive (Electrical) at Alangulam Cement Works under the following
conditions and the post was to be filled under open competition qualification,
experience and age.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.907 of 2023
“1.B.E. Electrical,
2. A minimum of 3 years of Experience
3. Age maximum of 35 years (Relaxible in deserving
case) as on 01.07.2010.
8. As far as the basic eligibility of the first respondent under the
land losers priority category is concerned, we have no doubt that the first
respondent is directly falling under the losers priority category. Lands were
acquired from the father of the first respondent and the name of the first
respondent's father is found in the acquisition proceedings. Thus, the first
respondent being the legal heir, is eligible to submit application seeking
employment pursuant to the notification dated 04.08.2010. Though the first
respondent has satisfied the requirements for submitting application,
admittedly, he was not possessing the minimum experience of three years,
which is prescribed under the said notification.
9. Prescription of educational qualification, age, experience, are
the prerogative of the employer and part of the Service Rules. High Court
exercising the power of judicial review cannot issue a direction to alter the
educational qualifications or to dispense with the experience qualifications
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.907 of 2023
contemplated for appointment to a particular cadre or post. Such conditions
being prerogative of the employer and within the domain of the Service Rules,
judicial interference is uncalled for and more so, the qualifications etc., are all
prescribed on certain basis. Therefore, we are not inclined to consider the
case of the first respondent, on the ground that he did not possess the
requisite experience of three years during the relevant point of time, when the
notification was issued and the application was submitted by him.
10. Even then, this Court has shown some leniency to the first
respondent and directed the appellants to reconsider the case of the first
respondent based on the documents produced by him. In compliance with the
order passed by this Court dated 18.08.2023, the appellants – Cements
Corporation has passed a detailed order vide proceedings dated 14.09.2023,
wherein, the eligibility of the first respondent was elaborately considered as
under:
Certificates / Documentary
Certificates /
proof required for the
documentary
appointment for the post of
proof produced Discrepancies and
S.No Technical Executive (Elecl)
by the Lapses identified
under Land Given category
individual on
as per Circular dated
12.09.2023
4.8.2010.
1 Qualification : B.E(EEE) Yes. Produced Nil
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.907 of 2023
He was not having 3
The Writ years experience at the
Petitioner has time of Circular dated
produced 4.8.2010. He has
Certificate for possessing certificate for passed the B.E. (EEE)
2 minimum of 3 years having only on April 2010.
experience. experience after hence, he could not
the date of produce 3 years
circular (i.e.) experience certificate.
4.8.2010 (21.11.11, 31.01.18 &
24.08.2023)
3 Age Yes. Produced - NIL-
Certificate from Revenue
Authority not below the rank The Writ
of Tahsildar to the effect that Petitioner has Certificate from the
his family was displaced on produced only a competent authority (i.e)
account of acquisition of land self declaration from Tahsildar was not
and the said land is the only attested by a submitted.
source of income of Notary Public
sustenance for family
No Objection Certificate from
other legal heirs duly attested
1) Bodi Perumal
by Notary Public / Magistrate 2)Perumalsamy Naicker
st Naicker –
/ 1 class Magistrate to the (Sl.No.2 in the Award) –
Heirship
effect they have no objection No Objection Certificate
Certificate
in providing employment in Not produced.
produced.
TANCEM and they will not
claim / raise any dispute in 3) Tmt.Seethalakshmi –
4) Sethuraj &
future in this regard. Sl.No.3) Death
sons No
Land Owners as per Award Certificate & Heirship
Objection
1) Bodi Perumal Naicker certificate Not produced
Certificate
2) Perumalsamy Naicker so as to verify the heirs.
produced.
3) Seethalakshmi
4) Sethuraj
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.907 of 2023
Finally, the Authorities found that the first respondent is disqualified for
providing appointment as Technical Executive (Electrical) under the land given
category.
11. As far as the eligibility criteria is concerned, the first
respondent has not fulfilled the requirement as per the notification dated
04.08.2010. Therefore, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single
Judge is infirm.
12. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the order dated
14.11.2022, passed in W.P.(MD) No.5839 of 2013, by the learned Single Judge
is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.L.N., J.]
05.10.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.907 of 2023
To:
1.The Special Deputy Collector
and Land Acquisition Officer,
Government Factory,
Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.
2.The Secretary,
State Government,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.907 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
krk
W.A.(MD) No.907 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.7161 of 2023
05.10.2023
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
