Madras High Court
A.Chandraraj vs The Managing Director on 21 July, 2025
2025:MHC:1717
W.P.(MD) No.22407 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 16.07.2025
Pronounced On : 21 .07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P. (MD) No.22407 of 2016
A.Chandraraj
3/845, A-34, Mullai Street,
West Bharathi Nagar,
Mugavai Timber Near,
Paramakudi - 623707. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Managing Director
Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board
No.31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk,
Chennai – 600005.
2. The Executive Engineer
Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board
Maintenance Division, Ramnad. ... Respondents
PRAYER in W.P.:
To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ calling for the
impugned letter issued by the Second Respondent vide Lr.No.
F.A.Chandraraj/A7/2014 dated 17.11.2014 and quash the same and direct
the First Respondent to regularize the service of the petitioner as
Electrician Grade I from the date of his appointment i.e., 20.05.1981 and
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 06:27:20 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.22407 of 2016
allow him to enjoy all the benefits of such regularized service
retrospectively and pass such further order as this Court may deem fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Petitioner : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen
for Mr.J.Ashok
For Respondents : Mr.R.Satheesh
Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for issuance of
a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 17.11.2014
passed by the second respondent and to consequently direct the
respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner to the post of
Electrician Grade I with effect from 20.05.1981, with all benefits.
3. The petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage basis as
Electrician Grade III in the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage
(TWAD) Board on 16.05.1981, through the Employment Exchange under
the Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) category. After putting in about 10 years
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 06:27:20 pm )
of service, the petitioner was brought into the regular establishment on
16.10.1992 and his service was regularised with effect from 15.09.1982
F.N. by proceedings in 2202/A4/FWLE(Gr)/2000, dated 19.04.2000, in
the post of Pump Operator, which was the category for which he was then
qualified. According to the petitioner although he possessed an ITI
Certificate in Wireman trade and was deployed to perform the duties of an
electrician from the outset, he was erroneously designated as a “Pump
Operator”. This error in designation was not rectified for several years.
4. It was only by proceedings of the TWAD Board dated
04.06.2001 that the petitioner was finally re-designated as Electrician
Grade II, with effect from 01.07.2001, following a recommendation by the
Executive Engineer.
5. The petitioner claims that he was all along performing the duties
of an Electrician and not a Pump Operator, and that he had acquired
significant experience in the electrical section. Based on this claim and
after persistent representations made over several years, the TWAD Board,
through its proceedings dated 04.06.2001, converted his designation from
Pump Operator to Electrician Grade II.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 06:27:20 pm )
6. Thereafter, the petitioner sought regularization as Electrician
Grade I, claiming that he should be deemed to have held the post of
Electrician Grade I from the date of initial appointment in 1981 itself and
therefore, was entitled to be considered for regularization to Grade I
retrospectively. However, this request was rejected by the second
respondent by proceedings dated 17.11.2014, on the ground that the
petitioner had not passed the SSLC examination and hence did not satisfy
the minimum general educational qualification required for appointment
of Electrician Grade I.
7. The said rejection is challenged in the present writ petition. The
petitioner contends that the rejection is erroneous. He submits that he had
appeared for SSLC under the old 11-year pattern and, as per the
clarifications issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
(TNPSC) and the Government, a candidate who had appeared under the
old system is to be treated as possessing the minimum general educational
qualification. He further contends that he held an ITI certificate in
Wireman trade and had the requisite two years of experience as an
Electrician, thereby fulfilling all criteria for regularization to Electrician
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 06:27:20 pm )
Grade I. He therefore argues that the rejection order is liable to be quashed
and that he should have been regularized to Electrician Grade I from the
date of his initial appointment.
8. Per contra, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit relying
on the petitioner’s own service register, which records that he had in fact
failed the SSLC exam in March 1974. They further state that although he
held the ITI Wireman certificate, the requirement of SSLC qualification is
a statutory precondition under the Board’s service regulations for
promotion to Electrician Grade I, and hence, his claim was rightly
rejected.
9. This Court is unable to accept the petitioner’s claim. The post of
Pump Operator, as per Regulation 23 of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and
Drainage Board Service Regulations 1972 required the minimum
educational qualification of 8th Standard pass and an ITI certificate in
Wireman trade. The petitioner fulfilled these qualifications at the time of
his regularization. He was accordingly absorbed in the Pump Operator
cadre, and his name was shown under that category in proceeding dated
1992. Subsequently as aforesaid by proceeding dated 04.01.2001, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 06:27:20 pm )
petitioner was recommended for appointment as Electrician Grade II based
on his experience. The qualification for Electrician Grade II is a Pass in
VIII Standard, an ITI Certifcate in the Trade of Electrician wit two years
of experience in the type of work. It is significant to note that this
conversion thus was not made on the basis of his eligibility or
qualification for initial appointment as Electrician Grade II, but was only
done as a matter of administrative adjustment on account of his long-
standing service and representations.
10. Further, the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of
Electrician Grade I under the TWAD Board norms is:
1. A pass in SSLC or its equivalent
2. An ITI certificate
3. A minimum of two years of experience in electrical work.
The petitioner failed in the SSLC examination held in March 1974, as
recorded in his Service Register. The impugned order refers to this fact
and holds that the petitioner does not meet the educational qualification
criterion. The petitioner claims benefit of certain TNPSC clarifications and
Government orders treating those who appeared in SSLC under the
11-year pattern as qualified. No such order has been produced before this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 06:27:20 pm )
Court to demonstrate its binding nature or applicability to promotions in
the TWAD Board. Moreover, those clarifications if any are not referred to
in the petitioner’s service record, nor has any competent authority certified
that he should be treated as an SSLC-pass candidate.
11. Even that his SSLC qualification could be relaxed, it is equally
important to note that the petitioner does not possess an ITI certificate in
the trade of Electrician. What he holds is an ITI certificate in the Wireman
trade, which, although related, is not the prescribed qualification for
Electrician Grade II. The petitioner has attempted to argue that the
impugned order does not cite that he does not possess the required ITI
certificate, but that does not advance his case. The petitioner cannot be
regularized to a post for which he does not meet the essential
qualifications, whether or not the administrative rejection order elaborated
all grounds.
12. The petitioner’s promotion to Electrician Grade II was itself a
conversion of post and not a result of promotion through due process. He
was not eligible for initial appointment to that post under the service rules,
but was accommodated owing to long service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 06:27:20 pm )
13. Apart from this, the writ petition also suffers from undue delay
and laches. The petitioner seeks a retrospective regularization to
Electrician Grade I from the year 1981, whereas his conversion to
Electrician Grade II was effected only in 2001. Pertinently, he made no
challenge or claim for Grade I since 1992. The petitioner accepted his
designation as Pump Operator and served and so his contention that he
was erroneously designated as Pump Operator which lead to further
detriment to rising up the cadre is all misconceived. It is only after the
passing of the impugned rejection order in 2014 and that too, two years
later in 2016, and after his retirement that he has approached this Court.
14. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no merit in the
writ petition. The prayer for regularization as Electrician Grade I with
retrospective effect from 20.05.1981 is wholly misconceived and legally
unsustainable. The writ petition is also barred by delay and laches.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 06:27:20 pm )
15. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
.07.2025
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
LS
To
1.The Managing Director
Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board
No.31, Kamarajar Salai,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600005.
2. The Executive Engineer
Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board
Maintenance Division,
Ramnad.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 06:27:20 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
LS
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 06:27:20 pm )
