Dismissed

The Branch Manager v. Geetha

Madras HC12 Aug 2022CMA/2484/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice S.M.Subramaniam dismissed this writ petition where the petitioner, an apprentice, sought direction for immediate appointment. The Court held appointment is not an absolute right and dismissed the plea noting the petitioner was eligible for open competition instead of preference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as the relief sought is devoid of merits; the petitioner is required to participate in the open competitive process.

The Branch Manager Vs Geetha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.42134 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.09.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.42134 of 2016

¶6

R.Kamalanand ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 2.The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., by its Chairman and Managing Director, Head Quarters Complex, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue

¶9

a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.11.2016 and appoint the petitioner to the post of Technical Assistant / Electrical / Mechanical forthwith in the existing or future vacancies on the basis of the apprenticeship training.

¶10

1/4

¶11

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

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Vasudevan For Respondents : Mr.P.Subramanian for TANGEDCO

¶13

W.P.No.42134 of 2016

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the writ petitioner dated 24.11.2016 and appoint the petitioner to the post of Technical Assistant/Electrical/Mechanical forthwith in the existing or future vacancies on the basis of the apprenticeship training.

¶16

2.The petitioner states that he has completed Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering and undergone apprenticeship training under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 at Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Trichy from 18.12.2002 to 17.12.2003 i.e., the field of Electrical and Electronics Engineering. Though, the petitioner is fully qualified for appointment, his case was not considered. Thus, he made a representation to the authorities competent who in turn, failed to consider and consequently, the present writ petition is filed.

¶17

2/4

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.42134 of 2016

¶20

3.Appointment can never be claimed as an absolute right. Appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with the rules in force. Mere eligibility for appointment would not be a ground to file a writ petition for issuing a direction to provide appointment. The preference granted to apprenticeship trainings were dispensed with by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and as per the recruitment rules, the petitioner has to participate in the open competitive process in accordance with the rules in force. Even at the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was aged about 37 years and now he would be around 43 years. Thus, the relief as such sought for is devoid of merits and accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs.

¶21

22.09.2022 Index : Yes Internet : Yes Speaking order ssr To

¶22

The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶23

3/4

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.42134 of 2016

¶26

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶27

ssr

¶28

2.The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., by its Chairman and Managing Director, Head Quarters Complex, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶29

W.P.No.42134 of 2016

¶30

22.09.2022

¶31

4/4

¶32

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

The Branch Manager v. Geetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Geetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Pandian Vs Nirmala W/O. Pandian

The Executive Officer Vs P.Sivagami alias Shantha

G.Karthikeyan Vs M.Viswanathan

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Pankaj Kumar Sharma

Amutha Vs Rajesh

S.Thiruveragan Vs Shakila