IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.11.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE N. KIRUBAKARAN W.P. No. 15125 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 B.Tamilselvan .. Petitioner ..vs.. 1.The Chairman and Managing Director, TNEB, Anna Salai, Chennai. 2.The Chief Engineer, TNEB, Anna Salai, Chennai. 3.The District Employment Officer, Employment Exchange, Dharmapuri. .. Respondents PRAYER: This Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Technical Assistant on the basis of Apprenticeship Training. For Petitioner: Mr.P.Madhan For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Vaidyanathan For R3 : Mr.P.Subramanian Additional Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner Mr.B.Tamilselvan, who has completed Diploma in Electrical and Electronics. He got registered with the Employment Exchange at Krishnagiri and after bifurcation of the District his enrollment was transferred to the District Employment Office at Dharmapuri. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The 1st and 2nd respondents called for applications for training as Apprentices for the academic year, 2003 and the petitioner got selected. The Apprenticeship training was given from 01.01.2003 to 02.01.2004 and a certificate was issued by the Regional Centre Apprenticeship Advisor, Board of Apprenticeship Training (Southern Region) on 22.05.2004. After completion of Apprenticeship training, the petitioner got registered the same with the Employment Office and he has been periodically renewing and the last renewal is to expire by 2011. The District Employment Officer, Salem declared that those who completed Apprenticeship training to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board would get call letters from Tamil Nadu Electricity Board directly. As the petitioner did not get any call letter, even after sufficient time, the petitioner verified with the 2nd respondent herein and he was told that the interview was already over by 08.07.2009. In this regard, the petitioner gave representations on 14.07.2009 and 17.07.2009. As the petitioner did not receive any reply or call letter, he has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Technical Assistant on the basis of Apprenticeship Training. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity Board giving the details of the recruitment. In paragraph 9 it is stated that the Employment Exchange sponsored 5039 names of candidates and the petitioner's name was not found in the list of candidates. 4. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated as follows:- " It is submitted that the name of the petitioner has not been sponsored due to the reason that the renewal of his registration on 13.02.2008 has not been up- dated in the computer datas based on which the lists of eligible candidates were sent by the District Employment Officer, Dharmapuri. It is further submitted that omission of the name of the petitioner might have been averted if the petitioner had approached the District Employment Officer, Dharmapuri before sending of list of eligible candidates, on seeing the advertisement published in Newspapers at that time as stated by the petitioner in his affidavit." 5. A reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner denying what is stated in the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent. It is stated that the 3rd respondent sponsored the petitioner's name for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the post of Helpler/Class VI to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, and it is evident from the call letter sent by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board dated 26.01.2009. If the petitioner's name was not updated in the month of February, 2008, the said letter dated 26.01.2009 would not have been sent. 6. Admittedly the petitioner is a Scheduled Tribe and a Diploma Holder in Electrical and Electronics. He also underwent Apprenticeship training for a period of one year under Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the same was also got registered with the 3rd respondent and it has been renewed upto 2011. It is stated by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board that Employment Exchange sponsored 5039 names of candidates. The petitioner's name was not found in the Employment Exchange list of candidates. Therefore, there cannot be any fault on the side of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 7. Mr.P.Subramanian, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent, submitted that the petitioner's name was not sponsored due to the reason that the renewal of his registration on 13.02.2008 has not been updated in the computer data base and that is the reason why the petitioner's name could not be sent. Moreover, he submits that the omission of the petitioner's name would have been prevented if the petitioner had approached the District Employment Officer. The stand of the 3rd respondent is not sustainable if the petitioner got registered with the 3rd respondent and got renewed, it is the bounden duty of the 3rd respondent to update in the computer data base. If the petitioner's name was not updated, the 3rd respondent is squarely responsible for that. It is the bounden duty of the 3rd respondent to act very responsibly and especially when it is maintaining a Register for Employment when Lakhs of people queuing up before Employment Office for Jobs. It is more responsible and onerous duty cast upon the 3rd respondent to keep the records updated. Any omission would play havoc in the life of a person who is waiting with a fond hope that he would get employment as he has already registered with employment exchange. The 3rd respondent cannot shirt his responsibility by merely making a statement that the petitioners renewal of registration has not been updated in the computer data base. It is clear case of dereliction of duty and negligence. 8. The petitioner is a Scheduled Tribe candidate who was the only candidate selected for the training in the year 2003 batch of Apprenticeship training. The Apprenticeship training started on 01.01.2003 and ended on 02.01.2004. The petitioner hails from socially and economically backward community whose ancestor would not have tasted the benefits of the Government for so many generations. It is very difficult for the Scheduled Tribe to go to school. Considering economically, socially and cultural https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ background there may not be any intention on the part of the Scheduled Tribes to get their children admitted in the schools. When that is the position, when a Scheduled Tribe undergoes schooling and completes Diploma in Engineering and successfully gets selected for Apprenticeship Training, his case should have been carefully handled. The action of the 3rd respondent would amount to denying the employment to a deserving candidate who is a Scheduled Tribe. 9. The 3rd respondent cannot be heard saying that omission of petitioner's name would have been averted if the petitioner had approached the District Employment Officer before sending of list of eligible candidates. There is no necessity for the petitioner to approach the District Employment Officer for verification. It is the duty cast upon the District Employment Officer to sponsor the names as per the seniority. The default on the part of the 3rd respondent cannot be used against the petitioner. 10. If the 3rd respondent's contention that the petitioner's renewal of registration on 13.02.2008 has not been updated in computer data base, the petitioner would not have got any call letter from Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for the post of Helper as his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Therefore, the contention of the 3rd respondent that the renewal of registration on 13.02.2008 has not been updated in the computer data base is false and the same is liable to be rejected. 11. If the petitioner's name was sponsored by the 3rd respondent by this time, he would have got employment and it would have benefitted his family also. Nowhere in the counter affidavit it is stated that now the petitioner's name has been updated and even a statement has been made in the counter affidavit regretting the omission of the petitioner's name. It may be a simple error for the 3rd respondent, whereas, he took away the right which is guaranteed under the Constitution of India to the petitioner, who would be the first generation person to get Government Employment. 12. As stated above, the petitioner is a qualified Diploma Holder in Electrical and Electronics Engineering and trained Apprentice in the Electricity Board and therefore, the 1st and 2nd respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's case for the post of Technical Assistant on the basis of Apprenticeship Training in the ensuing recruitment/immediate future recruitment. Therefore, the 3rd respondent is also directed to sponsor the petitioner's name to the suitable post wherever sponsorship is sought for appointment as per the qualifications of the petitioner. Though this Court is inclined to slap heavy cost against the 3rd respondent, this Court restrains itself from awarding cost due to judicial restraint. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ With the above, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. smn Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The Chairman and Managing Director, TNEB, Anna Salai, Chennai. 2.The Chief Engineer, TNEB, Anna Salai, Chennai. 3.The District Employment Officer, Employment Exchange, Dharmapuri. + 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.81957 + 1 cc to Mr. P. Madhan, Advocate SR No.81638 NG(CO) SR/29.11.2010 W.P.No.15125 of 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/