AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—W.P. (MD) Nos. 14206 to 14210 of 2009 were filed by the Petitioners, who were recruited to the post of Assistant Engineer in the selection made for the year 2006. They also joined duty during February, 2006. A person by name Premkumar (Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 6247 of 2010) made a query with the Respondent Electricity Board under the Right to Information Act and came to know that Assistant Engineers were appointed during the years 2002, 2003 and 2005. In the year 2002, there were 464 Assistant Engineers, in 2003, there were 203 Assistant Engineers and in the year 2005, there were 118 Assistant Engineers were appointed. These appointments were made by way of internal transfer. This according to them is to bypass the Government Order banning direct recruitment and also contrary to Regulation 87(10-A) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Regulations.
It was also their stand that appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer will have to be made in the ratio of 1:1 as per the Board regulations. Any appointment made contrary to the recruitment rules will be invalid. Therefore, they have sought for setting aside those appointments made by recruitment by transfer from other services by internal selection. The lists of those persons who were appointed in those three years were annexed in the typed set. The Petitioners have also sent a representation asking for cancellation of those appointments.
In these writ petitions, notice of motion was ordered on 23.12.2009. Pending writ petitions, no interim relief was granted to the Petitioners.
Even subsequent to these writ petitions, the two other persons filed W.P.(MD)Nos.6247 and 6248 of 2010, seeking for a writ in the nature of declaration declaring that internal selection for appointments made for the posts of Assistant Engineers for the year 2002 to 2005 based on G.O. Ms. No. 463, Finance Department, dated 23.11.2001 was illegal and consequently, to direct the Respondents to call for candidates for the posts of Assistant Engineers only from the open market by way of direct recruitment. In these two writ petitions, the Petitioners were not employees of the Board, but rank outsiders. Their only status was they have got their names registered with the Professional Employment Exchange. These two writ petitions were admitted on 29.04.2010. Pending the writ petitions, this Court directed one post in each writ petition to be kept vacant. In view of the commonality between these writ petitions, they were heard together and a common order is passed.
Mr. G. Thalaimutharasu, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that under TNEB Service Regulations 87(10-A), internal selection for appointment is deemed to be direct recruitment for all purposes including reservation of appointment with reference to regulation 89(b). The said regulation reads as follows: "(10-A) A candidate is said to be recruited by internal selection to a post if at the time of his selection for appointment thereto he is in the service of the Board, Appointment by internal selection shall be deemed to be direct recruitment for all purposes including reservation of appointment with reference to regulation 89(b)." Once it is deemed to be direct recruitment and there is ratio fixed between promotee and direct recruitment on the basis of 1:1, it is not open to the Respondent Board to go in for internal selection, thereby jeopardizing the chances of the direct recruits. In view of the ban order, the Petitioners were appointed only in the year 2006 even though they have got their names registered long before.
Reliance was placed by the Board on G.O. Ms. No. 463, Finance Department, dated 23.11.2001, wherein it was stated that with a view to enforce economic measures, the Government had issued certain guidelines. Due to financial constraints of the Board, they had adopted the Government order and new posts were created in the non work load areas and in the new sub stations. The ban order issued by the Government will apply only to the direct recruits and not for promotion. This was the stand taken by the Board in B.P.(Ch.) No. 73, Secretariat Branch, dated 26.3.2002. Therefore, what they could not achieve directly, they have achieved indirectly.
The Petitioner in the first batch of cases stated that because they were recruited in the year 2006, they have become juniors to persons who were appointed by the internal recruitment in the year 2002, 2003 and 2005. Hence, their legitimate expectation to get promoted to higher posts was completely spoiled. Likewise in the second batch, the Petitioners have contended that because of the non recruitment and filling up of the vacancies by internal candidates, the chances of outsiders to get into the Board''s service was jeopardized. Hence the selection should be set aside.
However, before going into the merits of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, it must be noted that in all writ petitions, the Petitioners sought for setting aside the selection of candidates numbering about 785 and not any one of them were made as parties either in their individual capacity or in a representative capacity. In the absence of the selected candidates being brought before, this Court cannot adjudicate the grievances projected by the Petitioners. In this context, attention of the Petitioners were drawn to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prabodh Verma and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, .
The Supreme Court subsequently had followed the Probadh Verma''s case (cited supra) in Suresh Vs. Yeotmal Dist. Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Another, . The relevant passage found in paragraphs 15 and 16 may be usefully extracted below:
Respondent 1 is a cooperative society. It has its own rules and bye-laws. The service rules framed by Respondent 1 stand approved by the Registrar. We have noticed hereinbefore that in the seniority list published in the year 1995, the position of the Appellant was at Sl. No. 4. Those candidates whose names appeared at Sl. Nos. 2 and 3 were not impleaded as parties in the said proceeding. In their absence, the dispute could not have been effectively adjudicated upon.
This Court in Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission observed: SCC pp. 728-29 16
In Prabodh Verma this Court held: (SCC pp. 273-74, para 28)
? The first defect was that of non-joinder of necessary parties. The only Respondents to the Sangh''s petition were the State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers concerned. Those who were vitally concerned, namely, the reserve pool teachers, were not made parties-not even by joining some of them in a representative capacity, considering that their number was too large for all of them to be joined individually as Respondents. The matter, therefore, came to be decided in their absence. A High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as Respondents or at least by some of them being before it as Respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large,.....
(See also All India SC & ST Employees'' Assn. v. A. Arthur Jeen3 and Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P.
The Supreme Court once again reiterated the principle laid down in Prabodh Verma''s case in Tridip Kumar Dingal and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, and reliance can be made on the following passage found in paragraph 41, which reads as follows:
Regarding protection granted to 66 candidates, from the record it is clear that their names were sponsored by the employment exchange and they were selected and appointed in 1998-1999. The candidates who were unable to get themselves selected and who raised a grievance and made a complaint before the Tribunal by filing applications ought to have joined them (selected candidates)as Respondents in the original application, which was not done. In any case,some of them ought to have been arrayed as Respondents in a "representativecapacity". That was also not done. The Tribunal was, therefore, wholly right inholding that in absence of selected and appointed candidates and withoutaffording opportunity of hearing to them, their selection could not be setaside.
Hence on this short ground, the writ petitions are liable to be rejected.
Even otherwise, the persons who were selected for the year 2006 cannot complain about the earlier recruitment. It is for the Board to rationalise the work force in terms of the rules and regulations applicable to the Board. Merely because Regulation 87(10-A) states that internal selection is deemed to be direct recruitment for all purposes mean that they are actually direct recruits cannot be accepted. Such regulations were made only for the purpose of providing communal roster for such selection and for fixing the seniority for each year of selection.
In the second batch of writ petitions, the Petitioners have no locus standi even to question the internal selection as they were neither in the service of the Board nor they were selected in any subsequent selection. Even in the first batch of cases, the Petitioners cannot even claim seniority on the date anterior to the date of entry into the service of the Board. Their claim based upon some hypothetical consideration and not on real service grievances cannot be projected in these writ petitions.
In view of the above, all writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.