R. SAKTHIVEL Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the issue involved in all the writ petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) MR .R.Singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.26692 and 29841 of 2013, submitted that all the petitioners have completed graduation in Bachelor of Engineering, hence, they are all eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer in the office of the respondents. Besides, they have undergone one year apprenticeship training in the office of the respondents, as such, they have completed the same successfully between June and August, 2013. They were selected for the said course on merits as per the communal reservation and rotation. Whileso, the respondents have given an advertisement dated 26.05.2013 in 'Deccan Chronicle', inviting the course completed apprentices for the registration of their names in the office of the respondents arbitrarily fixing the date of registration between 27.05.2013 and 03.06.2013 for employment opportunities. Since all the petitioners have completed the course only after 03.06.2013, they were unable to go for registration. Adding further, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even though the petitioners did not complete the apprenticeship before 03.06.2013, they did complete the training before the date fixed for interview i.e. in the month of November, 2013, as per the subsequent notification dated 27.09.2013, therefore, they cannot be denied appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer. Since the fixation of the cut -ff date for interview and appointment was arbitrary, all the petitioners filed the present writ petitions and this Court, by accepting the interim prayer, gave a direction to the respondents to call the petitioners for interview.

(3.) IN support of his submission, he has also relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. v. K.B.N.Visweshwara Rao and others ((1996) 6 SCC 216) for a proposition that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the employment exchange, and employment exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning departments for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition. In addition thereto, the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment shall call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be served and the equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates. But, without following these mode, appointments cannot be made to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical, Mechanical and Civil). In other words, it was contended that the respondents cannot confine the new recruitment through employment exchange alone. On these basis, Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned counsel for petitioner prayed for allowing the writ petitions as prayed for.