Two writ petitions challenged the selection of candidates for the post of Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce (Technical). The court dismissed both petitions, upholding the expert body's assessment that the selected candidates had adequate practical experience.
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.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 27..07..2023
Coram
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Writ Petition No.554 of 2022 & W.M.P.Nos.593, 596 & 32876 of 2022 and Writ Petition No.6216 of 2022 & W.M.P.Nos.6277 & 6278 of 2022
W.P.No.554 of 2022
C.Priyanga
..... Petitioner
-Versus-
1.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Chennai 600 003.
3.G.Akila
[Regn. No.2600001048]
[3rd respondent was impleaded by order of this court dated 27.01.2022 made in W.M.P.No.1091 of 2022 in W.P.No.554 of 2022]
1 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
4.The Secretary to Government,
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 003.
[4th respondent was impleaded by order of this court dated 01.06.2023 made in W.M.P.No.32873 of 2022 in W.P.No.554 of 2022]
..... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned provisional selection list dated 08.02.2022 for the post of Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce (Technical) in Mircro, Small and Medium Enterprises (E1) Department included in Tamil Nadu Industries Service, 2019 issued by the 1st respondent as per Notification No.34 of 2019 dated 09.12.2019 and to quash the same insofar as pertaining to the 3rd respondent concerned and consequently direct the 1st respondent to select the petitioner for the post of Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce (Technical).
[Originally, the writ petition challenged the ranking list dated 06.01.2022. Subsequently, the prayer has been amended by order dated 01.06.2023 made in W.M.P.No.32871 of 2022 in W.P.No.554 of 2022]
W.P.No.6216 of 2022
Dhivya Janani.K.
..... Petitioner
-Versus-
1.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Chennai 600 003.
2 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
Chennai 600 003.
Chennai 600 032.
[Regn. No.2500001128]
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned provisional selection list dated 08.02.2022 for the post of Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce (Technical) in Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (E1) Department included in Tamil Nadu Industries Service, 2019 issued by the 1st respondent as per Notification No.34 of 2019 dated 09.12.2019 and to quash the same insofar as pertaining to the 4th respondent is concerned and consequently direct the 1st respondent to select the petitioner for the post of Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce (Technical).
3 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
| For Petitioner | : Mr.S.T.S.Murthi, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Govindasamy for petitioner in both WPs |
|---|---|
| For Respondents | : Mr.R.Bharanidharan for R1 in both WPs |
| Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan, Addl. Government Pleader |
|
| for R2 & R4 in W.P.No.554 of | |
| 2022 and R2 & R3 in | |
| W.P.No.6216 of 2022 | |
| Mr.L.Chandrakumar and |
|
| Mr.Nalinidhar.T. for M/s.VPN Associates for R3 in W.P.No.554 of 2022 |
|
| Mr.V.Stalin for R4 in W.P.No.6216 of 2022 |
COMMON ORDER
W.P.No.554 of 2022 challenges the provisional selection of the 3rd respondent - G.Akila [Regn.No.2600001048], while W.P.No.6216 of 2022 challenges the provisional selection of the 4th respondent - E.Kalaiselvi [Regn.No.2500001128] by the 1st respondent – Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce (Technical) in Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises [EI(1)] Department included in Tamil Nadu Industries Service, 2019.
4 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
graduated in B.E. (Printing Technology). After her graduation, she worked for Technova Imaging Systems Private Limited, Saidapet, Chennai, which involved in the manufacturing and marketing of offset plates and chemicals, marketing of equipment and software. She worked there from 08.08.2016 to 17.05.2019. On
09.02.2019, the 1st respondent published an Advertisement, vide Advertisement No.564 [Notification No.34 of 2019] inviting applications from the eligible candidates through online for direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce (Technical) and Assistant Superintendent (Chemical Wing) in the Department of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises [EI(1)] Department included in Tamil Nadu Industries Service for the year 2019. There were 11 vacancies notified in the post of Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce (Technical) and 1 vacancy was notified in the post of Assistant Superintendent (Chemical Wing). The educational qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Director is Bachelor of Engineering or Bachelor of Technology of any discipline, except Civil Engineering and Architectural Engineering and practical experience in a factory or workshop for a period of not less than one year. The experience prescribed for the post of Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce (Technical) should have been obtained from a factory or workshop
5 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
recognized by the State/Central Government.
(b) She applied for the post of Assistant Director pursuant to the notification referred to hereinabove with all necessary educational and experience certificates. She attended the written examination held on 09.01.2021 and she successfully came out in the written examination. She was called for interview on 17.12.2021. She attended the interview with required certificates and the certificates were all verified on the same day. After the interview, a ranking list was published on 06.01.2022 for counselling. She was placed at 29 in the ranking list with a total mark of 322.50 both in the written examination and oral interview under SC category for the counselling. She attended the counselling on 19.01.2022. To her shock and surprise, one Akila, who was not having adequate experience and not fulfilled the eligibility condition stipulated in the notification, though was at 26th rank, has been selected provisionally for appointment to the said post. The grievance of the petitioner is that in gross violation of eligibility condition mandated in the notification, the 3rd respondent has been selected and given appointment to the post. Hence, the present writ petition.
(a) The petitioner belongs to Most Backward Class (MBC) community. She is graduated in B.E. (Chemical Engineering). After her
6 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
graduation, she had worked for Sterlite Industries India Limited from 03.06.2008 to 09.03.2009 and for Hindustan Zinc Limited at Dariba, as Process Engineer from 12.03.2009 to 26.03.2011. She had 3 years of practical experience in a factory / workshop.
(b) She applied for the post of Assistant Director pursuant to the notification referred to hereinabove with all necessary educational and experience certificates. She attended the written examination held on 09.01.2021 and she successfully came out in the written examination. She was called for interview on 17.12.2021. She attended the interview with required certificates and the certificates were all verified on the same day. After the interview, a ranking list was published on 06.01.2022 for counselling. She was placed at 15 in the ranking list with a total mark of 364.25 both in the written examination and oral interview under MBC/DC category for the counselling. She attended the counselling on 19.01.2022. To her shock and surprise, one E.Kalaiselvi, who was not having adequate experience and not fulfilled the eligibility condition stipulated in the notification, though was at 14th rank, has been selected provisionally for appointment to the said post. The grievance of the petitioner is that in gross violation of eligibility condition mandated in the notification, the 4th respondent has been given selected and appointment to the post. Hence, the present writ petition.
7 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
4.1. The 1st respondent – Secretary, TNPSC, Chennai, filed his counter affidavit in W.P.No.554 of 2022 inter alia contending that the Secretary MSME Department, was requested to verify the practical experience certificates uploaded by the candidates vide letter dated 30.03.2021 and the Secretary, MSME, in turn, by his letter dated 05.04.2021 had requested the Director of industries and Commerce to depute the officers to verify the experience certificates. Accordingly, the officers deputed by the Head of the Department verified the experience certificates and based on the verification report of the officers deputed by the Director of Industries and Commerce, applications of the candidates with suitable experience have been admitted for further selection.
4.2. It is further contended by the 1st respondent that the petitioner had not
reached the zone of consideration for provisional selection to the post based on marks secured by her, rank order, rule of reservation of appointment and number of vacancies available. Whereas 3rd respondent, who belonged to the same community, had secured 331.50 marks both in the written and oral test and was placed at 26 in the ranking list for counselling, reached the zone of selection in the counselling. The practical experience certificate uploaded by the 3rd respondent was verified and accepted by the Officers deputed by the Head of Department.
8 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
not reached the zone of selection. Whereas the 4th respondent had secured 365.25 marks both in written examination and oral interview. She was placed at 14 rank in the ranking list for counselling. The 4th respondent had reached the zone of selection in the counselling and therefore she was provisionally selected to the post. There was no violation in the selection process.
2022 inter alia contending that the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.554 of 2022 had worked as Assistant Professor in Dr.G.U. Pope College of Engineering, Thoothukudi, from 08.09.2010 to 25.06.2018. The experts from the department concerned had opined that “contours of the definition of factory / workshop experience in factory / workshop experience would include Teaching Theory and
Practical to students as well as maintaining Laboratory Equipments” Since the 3rd respondent had worked as Assistant Professor in the College of Engineering, an organization recognized by the Government, she had fulfilled the eligibility condition and therefore, she was considered for provisional appointment to the post of Assistant Director. (Technical).
9 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
W.P.No.6216 of 2022 inter alia contending that as per the letter of the Development Commissioner/SSI, Ministry of Small Scale Industries, Government of India, vide letter NO.5(1)/2001-SSIBD&Pol dated 10.09.2021, IT related activities and IT enabled services have been treated as Industrial Activities. The experts from the department concerned were of the opinion that “contours of the definition of factory/workshop experience in factory/ workshop experience have been broadened to accommodate computer software development and other IT related venture as industrial activities. The 4th respondent – Kalai Selvi had worked in Tata Consultancy Services as Assistant System Engineer from 06.07.2016 to 19.12.2017. As TCS is an organization recognized by the Government and the 4th respondent had gained experience in TCS, the experts opined that the individual had fulfilled the eligibility condition.
10 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
counter affidavit denying the averments in the writ petition and inter alia contending that TCS is also a factory in view of the law settled by the Supreme Court and it comes within the purview of the factory. Since TCS has been registered under the Central Government, her experience for 1 year and 4 months in TCS as Assistant System Engineer was considered by the experts and they were satisfied with the same. MSME Department has also issued a circular dated 16.11.2007 specifying that the software development consultancy services are MSME and for all practical purposes it should be treated as a manufacturing industry. Further MSME by communication dated 10.09.2021 informed that IT related activities and IT enabled services shall be treated as industrial activities eligible for registration as small scale industries. She was selected strictly as per the notification.
11 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
considering the petitioner-C.Priyaga for appointment, the 3rd respondent G.Akila, who did not fulfil the eligibility condition of experience and had only work experience as Assistant Professor in a Engineering College, was considered for appointment provisionally.
the 4th respondent-Kalaiselvi, who was not having the required practical experience in the industrial line for appointment to the post of Assistant Director.
12 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
The 4th respondent had obtained experience only in computer sector/software industry which cannot be equated to factory or workshop experience was considered for appointment and therefore, according to him, the selection of Kalaiselvi is against the eligibility condition and the same is liable to be set aside.
the Public Information Officer / Directorate of Industrial Safety and Health, Guindy, Chennai, would submit that IT companies, educational institutions and laboratories do not come under the purview of Factories Act, 1948. Therefore, according to him, the selection of G.Akila based on her experience obtained in the Engineering College as Assistant Professor is not legally sustainable and as she had not fulfilled the eligibility condition of experience, the TNPSC ought not to have selected her for appointment and instead, they should have considered the petitioner – C.Priyanga for appointment.
13 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
fulfilled the eligibility condition. The 3rd respondent was considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Director based on merits and her experience in the relevant field as required under the employment notification and therefore, the petitioner, who had not at all reached the zone of consideration, cannot challenge the selection of G.Akila and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
it will come under the purview of the factory. The MSME Department has also
14 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
considered the IT industry as a manufacturing industry for all practical purposes. Development Commissioner/SSI, Ministry of Small Scale Industries, Government of India, vide letter NO.5(1)/2001-SSIBD&Pol dated 10.09.2021, clarified that IT related activities and IT enabled services have been treated as Industrial Activities. The TNPSC had, based on the report of the experts in the field, came to a conclusion that the 4th respondent had adequate experience as required under the notification. Therefore, he would submit that the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable only to be dismissed.
are:
“(i) Bachelor of Engineering or Bachelor of Technology degree of any discipline except Civil Engineering and Architectural Engineering
(ii) Practical Experience in a factory or workshop for a period of not less than one year. The experience for the post of Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce (Technical) should have been obtained from a factory or workshop recognized by the State Government / Central
15 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
Government.”
Whether the petitioner in the writ petition is fully qualified with practical experience and is eligible for appointment to the post on merits?
16 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
required under the notification. Though she established before the TNPSC and the experts concerned, who were required to verify the experience of the candidates that she had obtained experience of 2 years and 10 months in Technova Imaging Systems Private Limited which engaged in manufacturing and marketing of offset plates and chemicals and marketing of equipment and software, she was not
considered for appointment to the post and on the contrary, the 3rd respondent who was not possessing adequate experience and was having experience only as
Assistant Professor in an Engineering College was considered for appointment to the post.
3rd respondent in W.P.No.554 of 2022 and experience said to have been obtained by them in the industrial/workshop are reproduced in the tabular column:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
| Name of the candidate |
Qualification | Duration of Experience |
Gained Experience in |
|---|---|---|---|
| C.Priyanka [Petitioner] |
B.E. Printing Technology |
08.08.2016 to 17.05.2019 |
Technova Imaging Systems Private Limited, Saidapet, Chennai |
| G.Akila [3rdrespondent] |
M.E. | 08.08.2010 to 25.06.2018 |
Dr.G.U.Pope College of Engineering Teaching, Lab Work and Equipment Maintenance |
W.P.No.554 of 2022, communal category, their position in the ranking list for
counselling and the result of the selection process are reproduced in the tabular
column:-
| Name of the candidate |
Marks secured (both in Written Exam and Oral Interview |
Position in the ranking list |
Communal Category |
Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C.Priyanka | 322.50 | 29 | SC | Not Selected |
| [Petitioner] | (280.50 +42.00) |
|||
| G.Akila [3rdrespondent] |
331.50 (279.00 + 52.50) |
26 | SC | Selected |
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
3rd respondent is not legally valid.
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
certificate verification was done by the General Manager along with one Chockalingam, the then Joint Director (Engineering). The opinion arrived at by the experts read thus:
“Tmt.Akila worked as an Assistant Professor in Dr.G.U.Pope College of Engineering with her nature of work mentioned in the experience certificate involving Lab experience such as:-
According to the experts, the lab experience possessed by the candidate Tmt.Akila is an industrial activity considering the equipments and machineries handled by her through the course of her job over the period of eight years and the role of such equipments and machineries in the Measurement, Testing and Quality control of the industrial activity.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
The petitioner has taken the condition that stipulates that the candidate should posses factory experience in a factory or workshop in the conventional sense of the term. With the advent of Industries 4.O, the definition of workshop experience cannot be confined to the literal perception. The contours of the definition of factory / workshop experience have been broadened to accommodate Measurement, Testing and Quality Control as an Industrial Activity. Taking this view, as an Engineering Graduate, Tmt.Akila the third respondent in the Writ Petition, possessed lab experience which is an industrial activity.
under:
“1. Shop floor where physical work is carried out 2. Seminar opt training class given to solve tasks related to work to gain hands-on-experience.”
“a period of discussion and practical work on a particular subject, in which a group of people share
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
their knowledge and experience.”
"9. ... It is too well settled that when a selection
22 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
is made by an expert body like the Public Service Commission which is also advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualification in the field for which the selection is to be made, the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless allegations of mala fide are made and established. It would be prudent and safe for the courts to leave the decisions on such matters to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts. If the expert body considers suitability of a candidate for a specified post after giving due consideration to all the relevant factors, then the court should not ordinarily interfere with such selection and evaluation. Thus considered, we are not in a position to agree with the conclusion of the High Court that the marks awarded by the Commission was arbitrary or that the selection made by the Commission was in any way vitiated.
34. In the case of Ganpat Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput vs. Gulbarga
University [(2014) 3 SCC 767 , the Supreme Court has held thus:
“17. When the view taken by the expert body is one of the possible view, the same is fit to be accepted. Further, the yardstick would be different when it concerns eligibility conditions pertaining to “qualification' and 'experience' . In case of experience, it is best known to the expert
23 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
body in the field in regard to the actual work done and therefore, its opinion is of higher degree deserving acceptance ordinarily.”
24 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
by the Directorate of Industrial Safety and Health, Guindy, Chennai, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 will no way help the case of the petitioner.
25 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
Whether the petitioner in the writ petition is fully qualified with practical experience and is eligible for appointment to the post on merits?
4th respondent in W.P.No.6216 of 2022 and experience said to have been obtained
by them in the industrial/workshop are reproduced in the tabular column:-
| Name of the candidate |
Qualification | Duration of Experience |
Gained Experience in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dhivya Janani.K |
B.E. |
03.06.2008 to 09.03.2009 |
Sterlite Industries India Limited |
| [Petitioner] | Chemical Engineering |
12.03.2009 to 26.03.2011 |
Hindustan Zinc Limited |
| Kalaiselvi.E | B.Tech (ECE) | 06.07.2016 to 19.12.2017 |
Tata Consultancy Services |
| [4threspondent] | and M.Tech |
12.02.2021 till date | Assistant Engineer (Industries) in Vellore |
4th respondent in W.P.No.6216 of 2022, communal category, their position in the
ranking list for counselling and the result of the selection process are reproduced in the tabular column:-
26 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
| Name of the candidate |
Marks secured (both in Written Exam and Oral Interview |
Position in the ranking list |
Communal Category |
Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dhivya Janani K [Petitioner] |
364.25 (317.00 + 47.25) |
15 | MBC/DC (W) | Not Selected |
| Kalaiselvi E [4th respondent] |
365.25 (318.00 + 47.25) |
14 | MBC/DC (W) | Selected |
immediately below the 4th respondent.
term “ factory” as under:-
“2. Interpretation.— In this Act, unless there is anything
repugnant in the subject or context,—
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
(m) “ factory” means any premises including the precincts thereof –
(i) whereon 10 or more workers are working, or
27 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
were working, on any day of the preceding 12 months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on; or
(ii) whereon twenty or more workers are working, or working on any day of the preceding 12 months and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of power ,or is ordinarily so carried on, but does not include (i) a mine subject to the operation of the Mines Act 1952, or (ii) a mobile unit belonging to the armed forces of the Union of India, (iii) a railway running shed, or (iv) a hotel , (v) a restaurant, (vi) eating place., (vii) poly house or (viii) Green house engaged in the activity of floriculture or pomology or high value crops.
Explanation I: For computing the number of workers for the purposes of this clause, all the workers in different groups and relays in a day shall be taken into account.
Explanation II: For the purpose of this clause, the mere
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 28 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
fact that an electronic Data Processing Unit or a computer Unit is installed in any premises or a part thereof, shall not be construed to make it a factory if no
manufacturing process is being carried out in such premises or a part thereof.”
counsel for the petitioner would submit that IT companies, educational institutions and laboratories do not come under the purview of the Factories Act,1948. The said information was furnished by the Public Information Officer/Joint Director (Testing and Safety), Directorate of Industrial Safety and Health, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
5(1)/2001-SSI BD & POL dated 10.09.2001 addressed to Secretaries of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 29 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
Industries/Commissioners/Director of Industries of all States/Union Territories
and Director of Small Industries Service Institute of all States / Union Territories
the following IT related activities and IT enabled services have been directed to be
treated as industrial activities eligible for registration as Small Scale Industries: -
& Policy dated 19.09.2000) and Software Services (including Computer Graphics Engineering Design), computerized design and drafting).
and Medium Enterprises Department, dated 16.11.2007 in D.O.No.2(3)/1/2007-
MSME-POL clearly specifies that software development consultancy services are
30 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
MSMEs and for all practical purposes it should be treated as manufacturing industry.
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
a judgement of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Seelan Raj v. The Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court [1997 (II) CTC 317]. In that case, the petitioner industry was admittedly carrying on business of computer data processing division and software development division and that the workmen concerned in the dispute were the employees of the computer data processing division. It was also not in dispute that the employer was not carrying on another activities which could be regarded as a manufacturing process. In that factual and legal background, the Division Bench of this court was pleased to hold as under:-
“9. The word 'factory' has been explained in Section 2(m) and while deciding whether a particular establishment is a factory or not, the meaning attributed to the words "manufacturing process" and "industrial establishment" would, be relevant. But on a plain reading of Explanation II added on December 1, 1987, it becomes abundantly clear that an electronic data processing unit, or a computer unit installed in any premises or part thereof, and such activities may amount to manufacturing process, bringing within the ambit of the word 'factory' as defined under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, yet Explanation II grants an exemption immunity to an electronic data processing or computer unit from being brought within the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 32 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
purview of the welfare legislators namely the labour laws. Thus, an establishment solely engaged as electronic data processing unit or, computer unit, though may be a factory, yet would be exempted from the application of labour laws by virtue of Explanation II and such establishment cannot be held as a factory. The only object of bringing Explanation II. is to march in step together with industrial modernization and electronic innovation in industrial field. Computer is a recent innovation and has augmented industrial development to a great extent. By computerization, efficiency has been increased adding to the national resources available for development. The legislature still thought more scope for the use of electronics and computer, and its contribution to the national development. 'Mus, in our view, taking prior the laudable object of national prosperity legislature thought it proper to grant immunity to such units from application of welfare legislation, namely labour laws, so that such developmental projects can strengthen national growth without any hurdle or impediment. Of course, the statement of objects and reasons for bringing out the amendment, does not expressly say so, but, if read in between the lines, we derive the aforesaid scope from para 2 of the statement of objects and reasons.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 33 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
10 of the very same judgement judgement (Seelan Raj's case), held as under:-
that by giving the aforesaid meaning to the Explanation II, by installing electronic data processing unit or computer unit in a small part of a big industrial establishment, exemption would be claimed from the implementation of labour laws, frustrating the very object of welfare legislation. The apprehension of Mr. Fenn Waiter is misplaced, as the legislature has taken ample care while 'rafting Explanation II. Addition of is following words: "If no manufacturing process is being carried out in such premises or part thereof' provides an answer to the apprehension. By incorporating these words, it is the intention of the legislature that if an establishment is solely engaged in electronic data processing or computer unit, then only the benefit of Explanation II can be claimed, but, if the electronic data processing activities or computer software processing activities are carried out along with other manufacturing process or activities, then, that establishment cannot claim the benefit and would squarely be covered by the welfare legislations, namely labour laws, and the establishment would be a factory as defined under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 34 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
Section 2(m) of the Factories Act.”
(First Appeal No.143 of 2012 dated 11.07.2012) , the Bombay High Court has held as under:-
“22. On this point, I may advert to a letter produced by Mr. Mehta which is issued by the Joint Director, ESIC, New Delhi dated 9th December, 2003, Exhibit-H, to the Regional Director where it is communicated that the Directorate General, Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Factories, Advisory Services and Labour Institutes by letters dated 9th March, 2003 and dated 22nd September, 2003 has clarified that the term "software development" falls within the meaning of "manufacturing process" under Section 2(k) of the Factories Act, 1948. I do not find any hesitation to rely on and adopt this clarification that the software development is a manufacturing process.”
54.While considering the issue of applicability of the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 to the employees employed in a software development service industry, the Bombay High Court in Assistant Director v. Western Outdoor Interactive [First Appeal No.143 of 2012 dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 35 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
11.07.2012] had observed that computer software development falls within the definition of manufacturing process as defined in Section 2(k) of the Factories Act, 1948. The meaning of the term ‘factory’ for the purpose of the ESI Act is broader than the definition under the Factories Act, 1948 and thus, held that Software development is a manufacturing process and the software industries involved in creating software are factories under the ESI Act, 1948.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 36 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
Government. TCS (software development industry) where the petitioner obtained experience could also be considered as factory for purpose of assessing practical experience. It is the consistent view of the Supreme Court that courts shall not ordinarily test the opinion of the experts unless their decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable. As already discussed, when the expert body assessed the practical experience obtained by the 4th respondent in TCS and based on the verification made by the expert body the recruiting agency has found that the 4th respondent is eligible to be appointed to the post, in the light of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ganpat Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput vs. Gulbarga University [(2014) 3 SCC 767] and Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare v. Anita Puri (Dr.), (1996) 6 SCC 282 , this court does not want to take a different view to hold that the opinion of the experts is incorrect, in particular when the experts considered the suitability of a candidate for a specified post after giving due consideration to all the relevant factors. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the practical experience obtained in Software/Information Technology Industries should not be considered as practical experience obtained in the factory for considering appointment to the post does not appeal to me.
37 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
petitioners on the proposition of judicial review also would be of no avail to the case of the petitioners in view of the conclusion reached at by this court.
In the result, Both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 38 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
Consequently connected MPS are closed.
27..07..2023
Index : yes / no Neutral Citation : yes / no kmk
To
39 of 40
W.P.Nos.554 & 6216 of 2022
N.SATHISH KUMAR.J., kmk
Writ Petition Nos.554 and 6216 of 2022
27..07..2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 40 of 40
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner in W.P.No.554 of 2022 is fully qualified with practical experience and eligible for appointment?, Whether the petitioner in W.P.No.6216 of 2022 is fully qualified with practical
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Seelan Raj. R. V. The Presiding OfficerReferred
Seelan Raj. R. V. The Presiding Officer [1997 (II) CTC 317]
Union Public Service Commission v. Gyan Prakash SrivastavaReferred
Union Public Service Commission v. Gyan Prakash Srivastava [(2012) 1 SCC 537] · Who else cites this
Alka Ojha v. Rajasthan Public Service CommissionReferred
Alka Ojha v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, [(2011) 9 SCC 438] · Who else cites this
Veer Pal Singh v. Secretary, Ministry of DefenceReferred
Veer Pal Singh v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, [(2013) 8 SCC 83] · Who else cites this
Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare v. Anita Puri (Dr.)Relied on
Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare v. Anita Puri (Dr.), (1996) 6 SCC 282 · Who else cites this
Ganpat Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput vs. Gulbarga UniversityRelied on
Ganpat Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput vs. Gulbarga University [(2014) 3 SCC 767 · Who else cites this
Assistant Director v. Western Outdoor InteractiveReferred
Assistant Director v. Western Outdoor Interactive (First Appeal No.143 of 2012 dated 11.07.2012)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.Priyanga
The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
The Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce
G.Akila
The Secretary to Government, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Department
Dhivya Janani.K.
N.Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
