S ARULMOZHI Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the present Writ Petition No.15410 of 2009 seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the candidates for appointment of petitioners to the 1100 posts of Technical Assistants in the 1st from among the trainee apprentices trained in the 1st respondent without fixing any upper age limit, based on the seniority of the Trainee Assistants on a preferential basis as long as such trainee apprentices have the requisite D.E.E.E qualification after following the selection process set out in the Service Regulations of the 1st Respondent as per the guidelines set out by the Honourable Supreme Court in order dated 03.10.1996 in Civil Appeal Nos.5285 of 1996 and in S.L.P.No,45556/1996. THE petitioner in W.P.No.17788 of 2009 seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment to the 1100 posts of Technical Assistants 1st from among the Trainee Apprentices trained in the 1st respondent without fixing any upper age limit, based on the seniority of the Trainee Assistants on a preferential basis as long as such trainee apprentices have the requisite D.E.E.E qualification after following the selection process set out in the service regulations of the 1st respondent as per the guidelines set out by the Honourable Supreme Court in order dated 03.10.1996 in Civil Appeal Nos.5285-5328 of 1996.

(2.) SINCE the common issues have been raised in all these two Writ petitions, they have been heard and disposed of by means of this common order.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said B.P.No,69, a number of persons who had completed apprenticeship with the 1st respondent, challenged the B.P.No,69 in W.P.No.11807 of 1988 assailing that they are entitled to be selected in preference to other applicants. The writ petition was dismissed by a single judge. AGGRIEVED by this, an appeal was filed, the Division Bench allowed the appeal and held that the D.E.E.E. Candidates who have apprenticed with the 1st respondent are entitled to be selected without going through the selection process. In the appeal filed by the TNEB, the Supreme Court by order dated 03.10.1996 in Civil Appeal No,5285/96 and in S.L.P.No,45556/1996, held that the trainee apprentices have to go through the selection process provided under the regulations and they have no right to be appointed on a preferential basis over other candidates. However, the Apex Court, referring to the earlier Supreme Court decision in 1995(2)SCC 1 in the case of UP State Road Transport Corp. Vs. UP Parivahan, also set out the benefits to which the trainee apprentices would be entitled to during the process of selection.