The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed for direction to appoint the petitioner to a Technical Assistant post based on apprenticeship training, holding that appointment is not an absolute right and must follow recruitment rules.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.42134 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.42134 of 2016
R.Kamalanand ... Petitioner
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
Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
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.
1/4
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Vasudevan For Respondents : Mr.P.Subramanian for TANGEDCO
W.P.No.42134 of 2016
ORDER
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.
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.
2/4
W.P.No.42134 of 2016
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.
22.09.2022 Index : Yes Internet : Yes Speaking order ssr To
3/4
W.P.No.42134 of 2016
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
ssr
W.P.No.42134 of 2016
22.09.2022
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner qualified under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 can claim a statutory right to immediate appointment to a post as an absolute right.
Whether factual eligibility alone warrants issuance of a writ of Mandamus barring open competitive recruitment rules.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R.Kamalanand
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.
S.M.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
