P UDAYAKUMAR Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who are Technical Assistants-Mechanical in Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur Dam, Salem District, have filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the Memo of the third respondent in his Memo No. 008029/45/g55/g552/2005-2 dated 27. 03. 2005 and quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to consider and select them as Junior Engineer-Mechanical (Grade II) by internal selection in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations as amended in B. P. Ms. (FB) No. 47, Secretariat Branch dated 12. 06. 1987.

(2.) THE petitioners' case, in brief, as culled out from their affidavit, is as under: the petitioners who are diploma holders in Mechanical Engineering, were appointed as Technical Assistants in the respondent Board on compassionate ground on 06. 01. 2000. Pursuant to calling of applications by the second respondent for internal selection to the post of Junior Engineer-Mechanical (Grade II) by Memo dated 03. 10. 2002, the petitioners' names were sponsored by the Superintending Engineer to the second respondent for the purpose of internal selection. In the said Memo of the second respondent calling for applications, the requirement was stated to be a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and practical experience in Mechanical side for a period of not less than two years in the Board or three years elsewhere. Though all the petitioners have the prescribed qualification and experience for internal selection, their names were not included in the selection order of Junior Engineers-Mechanical (Grade II) published on 03. 07. 2003 by the second respondent and except three employees, the names of those who were not satisfying the requirement were included in the selection order dated 03. 07. 2003. This order was challenged in W. P. No. 18940 of 2003 insofar as it related to 68 persons who were selected by taking into consideration their service in the cadre of Helper/wireman contrary to the service regulations. Subsequently, the petitioners withdrew the writ petition on the basis of assurance of the second respondent that they would be given promotion on their withdrawing the writ petition. The petitioners also gave as many as three representations to the respondents 1 and 2 followed by a legal notice. Since they were not promoted despite the assurance of the second respondent, they filed W. P. No. 5831 of 2005 seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider their representations and the legal notice and to promote them by internal selection and this Court directed the second respondent to dispose of the petitioners' representations in accordance with law and on merits within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Pursuant to this Court's directions, the third respondent, by order dated 27. 03. 2005, rejected the request of the petitioners and this order is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) HEARD Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. M. Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for the respondents.