IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :-16.11.2010 Coram The HONOURABLE MR.M.Y.EQBAL THE CHIEF JUSTICE and The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.A.Nos.1596 & 1597 of 2010 1.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Anna Salai, Chennai 2. 2.The Chief Engineer/Personnel Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Anna Salai, Chennai 2. .. Appellants in W.A.Nos.1596 & 1597 of 2010 vs. D.Venktesan .. Respondent in W.A.No.1596 of 2010 V.Palanimuthu .. Respondent in W.A.No.1597 of 2010 PRAYER : Writ appeals filed under clause 15 of the letters patent to set aside the order dated 11.12.2009 passed in W.P.Nos.4219 & 4218 of 2009 filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India,praying for the issuance of writ of Mandamus,directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Helper by giving preference to the apprenticeship those who have completed apprenticeship prior to 13.9.1988 as per the orders passed by this court in W.P. Nos. 11150 and 19743/94 with all attendant benefits. For Appellant s :Mr.M.Vaidhyanathan (in both W.As) For Respondent :Mr.Anandakumar (in both W.As) ***** https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C O M M O N J U D G M E N T THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE & T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. These appeals are directed against the Judgment and orders dated 11.12.2009 passed in W.P.Nos.4219 & 4218 of 2009. The respondents in the Writ Petitions are the appellants, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 2.The respondents herein filed Writ Petitions praying for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint them to the post of Helper by giving preference to the apprenticeship training which they had completed by following the orders passed in earlier Writ petition. 3.The case of the writ petitioners is that they have completed the ITI Course in the Trade Wireman during 1986 and thereafter underwent apprenticeship training with the appellant Board from 20.2.1987 to 19.2.1988. On successful completion of their training, they registered their names in the Employment Exchange and sought for employment in the Board based upon the Board Proceedings in B.P.Ms. (Ch) No.242 dated 26.6.1984. Since the respondent was not provided with employment, he filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.2892 to 2896 of 1995 and this Court by an order dated 10.3.1995, directed the appellant to give preference to the writ petitioner in the matter of appointment as and when recruitment is made. Despite such direction, since the respondent was not provided with any employment, he filed the present Writ Petition praying for a direction to appoint him to the post of Helper. 4.The learned Judge after taking note of the assurance given by the appellant Board in B.P.Ms.242 dated 26.6.1984, as well as the earlier orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.590 of 1992 [M.VASU AND OTHERS Vs. THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD. REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ANNA SALAI, MADRAS-2] dated 1.9.1992 and W.P.No.11807 of 1998 dated 15.11.1988 [DHARMARAJA AND OTHERS Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD (BY ITS CHAIRMAN) AND OTHERS], W.P.No.11158 of 1994, wherein this Court directed that employment to be given to such of those petitioners who were already similarly placed as that the respondents herein and the appellant Board having implemented such orders, the learned Judge disposed of the Writ Petitions with a direction to consider the claim of the respondents for employment and to appoint them as Helpers within a period of four weeks. Challenging the said orders, the appellant Board has filed the present Writ Appeals. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondents have no right to secure employment by solely relying upon B.P.Ms.(ch) 242 dated 26.6.1984 and the reliance placed by the learned Judge on the earlier orders passed by this Court is incorrect in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1995) 2 SCC page 1 [U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. U.P.PARIVAHAN NIGAM SHISHUKHS BEROZGAR], and this decision was subsequently considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5285 to 5328 of 1996. Therefore, the learned submits that the order passed in the Writ Petitions calls for interference. 6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents have completed their apprenticeship training on 19.2.1988; that all other similarly placed persons have been absorbed as Helpers; that the Board has also regularised 18,000 contract workers who were not qualified; that the respondents alone have been singled out and the learned Judge, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that the directions issued by this Court in the earlier Writ Petitions were implemented by the Board and therefore, the direction issued by the learned Judge is perfectly justified and valid and calls for no interference. 7.We have considered the submissions on either side and perused the relevant materials. 8.The claim of the respondents is that in terms of BP 242 dated 26.6.1984, the trained apprentices enjoy a preference in the matter of employment with the appellant Board under whom they underwent the apprenticeship training and such training was given to them under the provisions of the Apprenticeship Act 1956. 9.Since the Appellant Board acted in contravention to the terms of the Board proceedings, several such similarly placed persons as that of the respondent approached this Court by filing Writ Petitions challenging BPMs (FB) No.60 dated 13.9.1988 in and by which the appellant Board decided to discontinue the procedure of giving preference to candidates who have completed the Apprenticeship Training in the Board. This Court allowed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.11807 of 1988, by an order dated 15.11.1988 reported in 1989 (1) L.L.N. Page 105 [P.DHARMARAJA Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTHER]. 10.It appears that the Judgment rendered in that Writ Petition by a learned Single Judge of this Court attained a finality. Thereafter, the Board has also implemented the directions given and persons who were similarly placed as that of the respondents were absorbed. Subsequently several other cases were also disposed of on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the same line, which has been dealt with by the learned single Judge while disposing of the Writ Petition. For better appreciation, paragraph Nos.6, 7 & 8 are extracted hereunder: "6.In fact, the assurance given in B.P.Ms.(Ch) No.242 was later withdrawn in B.P.(FB)No.69, Secretariat Branch, dated 13.09.1988. Therefore, the apprentices, who were trained after 13.09.1988, are not entitled to preference in employment in the respondent-Board. Therefore, the crucial date was 13.09.1988 and the apprentices, who were trained by the respondent-Board before the crucial date, are entitled to preference in employment, as per B.P.Ms.(Ch) No.242 referred to above. 7.When the Board refused to give preference in employment to apprentices trained before 13.09.1988, as per the promise made in B.P.Ms.(Ch) No.242, the apprentices, who were similarly situated as petitioners, filed series of writ petitions in various batches claiming employment. One such writ petition was disposed as early as on 01.09.1992 in W.P.No.590 of 1992 (M.VASU AND OTHERS VS. THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ANNA SALAI, MADRAS – 2 AND ANOTHER) and this Court directed the respondent- Board to give preference in employment to the apprentices, who were trained before 13.09.1988. Based on the order of this Court, those persons were given employment by the respondent-Board. The petitioner and 8 others filed writ petition in W.P.No.19743 of 1994 and this Court directed the respondents to give preference in employment following the earlier order dated 01.09.1992 in W.P.No.590 of 1992. In fact, this Court considered the B.P.Ms.(Ch) No.242 and Section 22 of the Apprentices Act on 15.11.1988 in W.P.No.11807 of 1998 reported in 1989 (1) LLN 105 (DHARMARAJA AND OTHERS VS. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD (BY ITS CHAIRMAN) AND ANOTHER) in a well considered judgment and directed the respondent-Board to give preference in employment to apprentices trained before 13.09.1988 as per B.P.Ms.(Ch) No.242. 8.The apprentices who were similarly situated like the petitioner, filed writ petition in W.P.No.11158 of 1994 claiming appointment as per B.P.Ms.(Ch) No.242. This Court, following the earlier decision dated 01.09.1992 in W.P.No.590 of 1992 referred to above, passed an order dated 21.07.1994 in W.P.No.11158 of 1994, directing the respondent-Board to give preference in employment, as those persons completed apprenticeship training before the crucial date i.e. 13.09.1988". https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11.Further, it is seen that the respondents completed their apprenticeship training trained apprentice before the crucial date i.e. 13.9.1998 and there is no reasonable explanation offered by the appellant Board as to why they were not given employment despite several thousands of workmen have been appointed after the cut off date and that too appointments have also been periodically made apart from absorption of 18,000 contract workers pursuant to recommendations by Hon’ble Justice Khalid Commission. Therefore, we are of the firm view that at this stage of the matter, the appellant Board can not adopt a different yardstick to the case of the respondents who have completed the apprenticeship prior to 13.9.1988, which is the crucial date. 12.In the light of the above factual position, we are of the view that the appellant Board has not made out any good grounds to interfere with the order passed in the Writ Petitions. 13.In the result, the Writ Appeals fails and the same are dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar Rpa/pbn To 1.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Anna Salai, Chennai 2. 2.The Chief Engineer/Personnel Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Anna Salai, Chennai 2. +2ccs to Mr.M.Vaidhyanathan, Advocate Sr 82032,82681 +2ccs to Mr.G.Anandakumar, Advocate Sr 81871 GR(CO) km/26.11. W.A.Nos.1596 & 1597 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/