Dismissed

M.Sivakumar, M/49 Years v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Madras HC28 Sept 2022CRL A/731/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought a direction to appoint him as a Technical Assistant based on apprenticeship training. The High Court held that appointment is not an absolute right and must follow recruitment rules, dismissing the petition as the petitioner was required to participate in open competitive processes.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's petition for appointment as Technical Assistant on the basis of apprenticeship training was dismissed.

M.Sivakumar, M/49 Years Vs the State of Tamil… — 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

M.Sivakumar, M/49 Years v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sivakumar, M/49 Years v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

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

Govindaraj Vs Thangaraj

P.Mani Vs the State Rep. by

The State Rep by Vs Tr.K.Madhavan

G.Ajay Agarwal Vs M/S.Bhagwandas and Co.

V.Palanisamy Vs Ramasamy(Died) 1.R.ANANDI

Mr.J.Vinoth Vs Mr.R.Vinayachand HUF