THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD ENGINEERS SANGAM AND ORS. Vs. ERO VELAI ILLA PATTATHARIGAL SANGAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal in W.A.No.1176 of 2000 is filed by the TNEB Engineers Sangam against the order in W.P.No.1307 of 1997 dated 05.06.2000. Against the very same order, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and its Chairman have filed the appeal in W.A.No.2044 of 2000.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) The members of the writ petitioner sangam are unemployed youth with majority of them being Engineering Graduates. Some of them, according to the petitioner, had completed the apprenticeship training with the first respondent. The case of the petitioner is that in the promotion and appointment ratio fixed for the above posts, the Board has failed to take into consideration, the interest of the members of its association. The further case of the petitioner is that for the purpose of filling the post of Assistant Executive Engineers, earlier the ratio of 3:1 was followed, i.e for every three candidates from the post of Assistant Engineer, one candidate from the post of Junior Engineer Grade - I of Class-II would be considered. The entry level for Diploma Holders is Technical Assistants and the post of Diploma Holders is filled up in the ratio of 3:1, i.e. for every direct recruitment of three Diploma Holders, one non-diploma holder would be promoted. The Technical Assistants are promoted as Junior Engineer Grade - II, who would inturn be promoted to the post of Junior Engineer Grade - I and like wise. The further case of the petitioner is that the post of Assistant Engineer would be filled by internal selection among Diploma Holders, who have completed part-time Engineering and by direct recruitment in the ratio of 1:1. The ratio of 3:1 for considering the candidates from the categories of Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers Grade - I to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer has also been upheld by the Apex Court in W.P.No. 3736 of 1982. However, the Board suddenly started following the ratio of 2:1:2, i.e Two Assistant Engineers, one Junior Engineer Grade - I and Two Junior Engineer Grade - II and altered the same to 2:2:1 based on a settlement under Section 18(1) and 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. For the rural areas in Distribution Circle, the ratio was fixed at 2:3 and the same was also approved by the Board in the impugned proceedings. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the writ petition inter alia contending that the interest of the members of the petitioner s association, i.e the Diploma Holders has been ignored, the ratio to be followed is 3:1, that the above fixation of ratio is arbitrary and discriminatory, affects the rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, that only the statutory service regulation is applicable to decide the recruitment and promotion in the service of the Board and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be invoked and that the present ratio would deter the entry and promotion scope of its members in service.