Madras High Court
S.Balagurusamy vs The Chief Engineer (Personnel) on 4 September, 2023
W.P.No.20610 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.20610 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
S.Balagurusamy ... Petitioner
-Vs-
The Chief Engineer (Personnel),
Tamilnadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Limited,
(Formerly known as Tamil Nadu Electricity Board),
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondent
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India
for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to
consider petitioner's representation dated 11.07.2012 and to give the
petitioner absorption and appointment forthwith as helper by giving
preference based on the apprenticeship training which he has joined in
the respondent Board prior to 13.09.1988 and as given to other similarly
placed persons like me.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ajoy Khose
For Respondent : Ms.N.Nilani Claire
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20610 of 2012
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for direction directing the
respondent to appoint the petitioner as Helper by giving preference based
on the apprenticeship training.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3. The respondent Board issued proceedings dated 26.06.1984 and
issued directions to give preference in the matter of absorption to the
apprentices who have undergone apprenticeship training in various
trades with the Board, after their successful training, while going for
direct recruitment in the respective posts. The petitioner is an ITI
Certificate Holder in the Electrician Trade. He had undergone National
Apprenticeship Training in Switch Board Attender Trade under the
respondent Board from 29.03.1988 to 28.03.1991. However, he was not
given preference for direct recruitment. The petitioner also stated that the
similarly placed persons approached this Court by various writ petitions
and they were granted employment as per the Board proceedings. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20610 of 2012
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had given cut off date as 13.09.1988.
Those who had completed their apprenticeship training, they are eligible
to be given preference for recruitments. Therefore, the petitioner made a
representation seeking employment.
4. A perusal of the counter filed by the respondent revealed that
insofar as the post of Helper (Trainee) was made in the year 2009, 2014
recently in the year 2016, wherein the upper age limit have been relaxed
by five years based on adoption orders issued in B.P.No.25 (Adm.Br)
dated 28.10.2006. In the recent recruitment during the year 2016, the
said post has been made through open market. The petitioner, after
availing the age relaxation and benefits had participated in the direct
recruitment made during the year 2014. However, he was not selected
on merits of the marks. Now, he seeks appointment on basis of the
Apprenticeship Training. Inspite of having been participated in the
recruitment made in the year 2014, now he has submitted an application
seeking appointment on the basis of his apprenticeship, on the strength
of the similarly placed person were given appointment, those who were
completed apprenticeship training in the Board before the crucial date
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20610 of 2012
namely 13.09.1988.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of
Uttar Pradesh and others Vs V.Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others
reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 held as follows:-
“22.1. Normal rule is that when a particular set of
employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically
situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that
benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and
would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
This principle needs to be applied in service matters more
emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this
Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated
persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal
rule would be that merely because other similarly situated
persons did approach the Court earlier, they are not to be
treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well
recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as
well acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the
wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same
and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that
their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in
time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot
claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of
similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be
treated as fence- sitters and laches and delays, and/or the
acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those
cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was
judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20610 of 2012
situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not.
With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the
authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly
situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject
matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like
scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma &
Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the
judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit
of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the
Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the
judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and
language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of
the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that
their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or
acquiescence.”
6. Thus, it is clear that those persons who had not challenged the
wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up
after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who
had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then
such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in
the case of similarly situated person be extended to them. They would be
treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays and/or the acquiescence
would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
7. In the case on hand, the petitioner while filing this writ petition,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20610 of 2012
waited till the persons who had approached this Court in the year 2000
itself and got some relief. Therefore, the person claiming equality has to
prove his case for eligibility as per the rules in the first instance and then
only he can seek any parity. Further, the petitioner is a Fence-Sitter and
his claim is very belated one. Therefore, on the ground of latches, the
petitioner is not entitled for any relief on the ground of parity. That
apart, the petitioner had already participated in the recruitment process
and having been failed in the recruitment process held in the year 2014,
he is seeking employment on the basis of apprenticeship.
8. In view of the above, this writ petition is devoid of merits and
is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
04.09.2023
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
mn/nsl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20610 of 2012
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn
To
The Chief Engineer (Personnel),
Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited,
(Formerly known as Tamilnady Electricity Board),
No. 144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
W.P.No.20610 of 2012
04.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
