{"id":8683,"date":"2005-04-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-04-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005"},"modified":"2018-05-25T14:30:12","modified_gmt":"2018-05-25T09:00:12","slug":"the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005","title":{"rendered":"The Tamilnadu Electricity vs Bharathiya Electricity … on 7 April, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Tamilnadu Electricity vs Bharathiya Electricity … on 7 April, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 07\/04\/2005 \n\nC O R A M  \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. MARKANDEY KATJU, Chief Justice     \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice PRABHA SRIDEVAN     \n\nWrit Appeal No.520 of 2005 \nand \nW.A.M.P.No.964 of 2005  \n\n1. The Tamilnadu Electricity\n   Board, rep. by its\n   Chairman,\n   Anna Salai,\n   Chennai-2.\n\n2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel),\n   Tamilnadu Electricity Board,\n   Anna Salai,\n   Chennai-2.                                   ...  Appellants\n\n-Vs-\n\nBharathiya Electricity Employees\nFederation, Regn.No.990\/SLM,  \nrep. by its General Secretary,\nNo.5\/38-V, Arumugam Nagar,   \nNew Fairlands,\nSalem-16.                                       ...  Respondent\n\n        Prayer :  Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as against\nthe order dated 18.01.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.34556 of 2004.\n- - - - -\n!For Appellants :  Mr.  V.  Radhakrishnan\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.  V.  Prakash,\n                Senior Counsel for\n                Mr.  P.  Chandrasekaran\n\n:J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n
PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
        The  respondent-writ petitioner, is the Federation of the Employees of
\nthe Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.  On 16.10.2004,  the  second  appellant,  by
\nLetter  No.81288\/875\/G.56\/G.561\/2004-1,  called  for applications from willing
\nemployees in the categories of Junior  Assistant\/  Administration  and  Junior
\nAssistant\/Accounts  for appointment by transfer to the post of Junior Auditor.
\nThe requisite qualification  was  possession  of  a  Bachelor’s  Degree  viz.,
\nB.A.\/B.Sc.\/B.Com.\n<\/p>\n
        2.   The  method  of  recruitment  to  the  post  of Junior Auditor is
\ngoverned by Regulation No.94 of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Electricity  Board  Service
\nRegulations.  It is as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
a) By direct recruitment;\n<\/p>\n
b) Appointment from –\n<\/p>\n
i)Junior  Assistants  in  the  Board  Office  Administration  Branch, Accounts
\nBranch, Technical Branch, and other Subordinate Offices (or)\n<\/p>\n
ii) Appointments from Typists including Steno-Typists (or)\n<\/p>\n
iii) Appointments from Assessors in Circle Offices.\n<\/p>\n
According to the respondent, the appellants have violated Articles 14  and  16
\nof  the  Constitution of India by drawing candidates for selection to the post
\nof Junior  Auditors,  from  one  category  alone,  viz.     Junior   Assistant
\n(Administration) and (Accounts) and excluding Typists and Assessors.\n<\/p>\n
        3.      The  learned  single  Judge  by  his judgment dated 18.01.2005
\nrejected the contention that the Board was entitled to prefer one category  of
\nemployees  out of the four categories from which persons could be appointed by
\ntransfer.   Learned  single  Judge  also  rejected  the  contention  that  the
\nappellants  were entitled to restrict the scope of appointment to one category
\nalone since there were a number of vacancies in  the  post  of  Assessors  and
\nTypists.   Above  all,  it  was  held that when the appointment to the post of
\nJunior Auditors is made by selection, it was necessarily on  consideration  of
\nmerits  and  therefore,  there  cannot  be  discrimination  amongst  the three
\ncategories mentioned in Clause (b) of Regulation 94.  Against this order,  the
\npresent writ appeal has been preferred.\n<\/p>\n
        4.      The  learned  counsel  for the parties submitted their written
\nsubmissions and also advanced oral arguments.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  Before dealing with these  submissions  we  would  like  to  quote
\nparagraphs 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit in the writ petition which state:-\n<\/p>\n
        “Para-8:   While  considering the appointment from other categories it
\nwas found that in the category of Typists including Steno-Typists,  there  are
\nmore than  250  vacancies exist.  Hence, the incumbents in this category could
\nnot be transferred.  Equally appointment from Assessors from Circle Office was
\nalso considered to be not possible because there are 170 vacancies in the post
\nof Assessors.  In the event of transfer, Typists, Steno-Typists, and Assessors
\nvacancies cannot be filled up as there is a ban in the recruitment of  initial
\nlevel  categories  besides  there  are  vacancies  in  these  two  categories.
\nTherefore,  it  was  found  that  transfers  from  these  two  categories  was
\nabsolutely not  feasible  in  the  interest  of  administration.  In so far as
\nJunior Assistants\/Administration, some of the posts have been  suppressed  and
\nit  was  found  possible  that  some  eligible  and willing Junior Assistants\/
\nAdministration and Accounts could be transferred to fill up the post of Junior
\nAuditors.  At this stage, it is relevant to point out that the  scale  of  pay
\nfor  the  posts  of Junior Auditor and Junior Assistants and Assessors are one
\nand the same.\n<\/p>\n
        Para:9 In those circumstances, the 2nd respondent issued the  impugned
\nCall  Letter dated 16.10.2004 calling upon the Superintending Engineers of all
\nCircles to furnish the list of willing Junior Assistants\/  Administration  and
\nAccounts,  who  possess  the requisite degree qualification for appointment to
\nthe post of Junior Auditor by transfer method.  The  respondents  respectfully
\nsubmit  that  the propsoed action of the respondents is only filling up of the
\nposts by transfer  method  and  not  recruitment  by  internal  selection,  as
\ncontended by  the  petitioner.  The petitioner Union on a misconception of the
\nfacts had assumed that it is under recruitment and thereby the impugned letter
\nexcludes the Assessors for being selected to the post of Junior Auditors.   By
\nthe  impugned  process of filling the post of Junior Auditors by transfer, the
\npromotional prospects of any employee is not deprived of and only the willing,
\nand qualified Junior Assistants\/Administration and Accounts have been given an
\noption to relinquish his\/her right for promotion in the present post  held  in
\nthe event of appointment as Junior Auditors.”\n<\/p>\n
        6.      According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the posts
\nof  Junior  Auditors,  Junior  Assistants, Typists and Assessors, all carry an
\nequal pay scale of Rs.3370-100-5770.   Since  a  ban  was  imposed  on  direct
\nrecruitment,  the  appellants  had  to  necessarily  resort to the alternative
\nmethod provided for in Clause (b) of Regulation 94 of the Service Regulations.
\nLearned counsel contended that the action proposed by the appellants was  only
\nto  make  appointments by transfer and not by promotion or internal selection.
\nHence, there was no question of discrimination.  It is specifically stated  in
\nparagraph  –  9 of the counter affidavit in the writ petition that there is no
\npromotion or  appointment  by  internal  selection  made  in  this  method  of
\nrecruitment by  transfer  to  the post of Junior Auditor.  Learned counsel for
\nthe appellants also submitted that when administrative exigencies require  the
\nexclusion  of  two categories for the purpose of appointment, the Court should
\nnot interfere.  As alleged in paragraph 8 of  the  counter  affidavit  (quoted
\nabove),  more  than  250  vacancies  exist  in  the  category  of  Typists and
\nSteno-typists and 170 vacancies in the category of Assessors.  Therefore,  the
\nadministration  would  suffer  if  persons  are  transferred  from  these  two
\ncategories to the post of Junior Auditors.  Equally, because of surplus  staff
\non  the  post  of  Junior  Assistants,  some of the posts had to be suppressed
\n(abolished) and therefore, eligible and willing  Junior  Assistants  could  be
\neasily transferred  to  fill  up the post of Junior Auditors.  It is stated by
\nthe appellants in their counter affidavit that by this process of  filling  up
\nthe  post  of  Junior  Assistants  by  transfer, ‘promotional prospects of any
\nemployee  are  not  deprived,  and  only  the  willing  and  qualified  Junior
\nAssistants\/Administration and Accounts have been given an option to relinquish
\nhis\/her  right  for  promotion  in the present post held in the event of their
\nappointment as Junior Auditors’.\n<\/p>\n
        7.      Regulation 94 of the  Tamil  Nadu  Electricity  Board  Service
\nRegulations  provides  that no person shall be eligible for appointment to the
\npost and by the method mentioned  in  Annexure-III  unless  he  possesses  the
\nqualification specified therein.  We have already seen that appointment to the
\npost  of  Junior Auditors could be either by direct recruitment or appointment
\nfrom the three categories mentioned therein.  The Note to Regulation 94  reads
\nthus :-\n<\/p>\n
        “Note :    The seniority of a person in the category of Junior Auditor
\nappointed from the category of typist or steno-typist shall be determined from
\nthe date of his regular appointment as Junior Auditor.  In the case of persons
\ndirectly recruited or transferred from other branches of the Board Office, the
\nseniority shall be determined, unless otherwise specifically ordered from  the
\ndate of joining duty”.\n<\/p>\n
It is also seen from the same that for the post of Auditors, appointment could
\nbe by way of promotion from Junior Auditors or direct recruitment or promotion
\nfrom Assistants in the office of the Administrative Branch or Technical Branch
\nor promotion from Typists or Stenotypists.\n<\/p>\n
        8.      In (2003) 2  SCC 632 (P.U.  Joshi v.  Accountant General), the
\nSupreme Court<\/a> had an occasion to consider the scope of  judicial  review  with
\nregard   to   the   determination  of  conditions  of  service,  constitution,
\nclassification or abolition of posts, etc., wherein it was held as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
        “We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf  of  both
\nparties.   Questions  relating  to  the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of
\nposts,  cadres,  categories,  their  creation,  abolition,   prescription   of
\nqualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions
\nand  criteria  to  be fulfilled for such promotions pertaining to the field of
\npolicy are within the exclusive discretion  and  jurisdiction  of  the  State,
\nsubject,  of  course,  to  the  limitations  or  restrictions envisaged in the
\nConstitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any  rate,
\nto  direct  the  Government  to  have  a  particular  method of recruitment or
\neligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by  substituting
\nits views  for  that  of the State.  Similarly, it is well open and within the
\ncompetency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or
\namend  and  vary  by  addition\/subtraction  the  qualifications,   eligibility
\ncriteria  and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from
\ntime to time, as administrative exigencies may need or necessitate.  Likewise,
\nthe State by appropriate  rules  is  entitled  to  amalgamate  departments  or
\nbifurcate  departments  into more and constitute different categories of posts
\nor cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation  or  amalgamation
\nas  well  as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres\/categories of
\nservice, as may be required from time  to  time  by  abolishing  the  existing
\ncadres\/posts, and  creating  new  cadres\/posts.    There  is  no  right in any
\nemployee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his  service
\nshould forever be the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes
\nand  except  for  ensuring  or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned,
\nacquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no
\nright to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and  bring  into
\nforce new rules relating to even an existing service.”\n<\/p>\n
        9.      In  the present case, the appellants have categorically stated
\nthat the  promotional  prospects  of  the  employees  are  not  deprived,  and
\nqualified Junior Assistants\/Administration and Accounts who have been given an
\noption  to  relinquish  their  right  for  promotion  to  the present post are
\nappointed as Junior Auditors in the three categories from  which  persons  are
\nappointed  by  transfer as Junior Auditors and the post of Junior Auditors all
\ncarry the same scale of pay.    The  appellants  have  also  stated  that  the
\nadministration would suffer if Junior Auditors are recruited from the category
\nof  Typists  or Assessors since there are already vacancies in those posts and
\nthese vacancies cannot be filled up since there is a ban on the recruitment at
\nthe initial level in these two categories.   Therefore,  in  the  interest  of
\nadministration,  it  was  found  that transfers from those categories were not
\nadvisable and feasible.  In addition, some Junior Assistants were in excess to
\nthe posts and some of the  posts  had  to  be  abolished  and  therefore,  the
\nadministration  felt  that  some of the eligible and willing Junior Assistants
\ncould be transferred.  The sanctioned strength of the Junior Assistants is  31
\nand there are 23 vacancies.\n<\/p>\n
        10.     On  a review of the internal audit and internal control system
\nin the Board Audit Branch, it was pointed out that the  Audit  Branch  of  the
\nBoard  had  to  be  strengthened  by  filling up the posts of Auditors, Junior
\nAssistants and Typists.  The posts of Junior Assistants could not be filled up
\nby direct recruitment because of the ban.  The appellants, therefore,  had  no
\noption but  to  fill  up  the  vacancies  by transfer.  In addition, the three
\ncategories from which the posts of Junior Auditors are filled up are connected
\nby the word ‘or’ which, in the normal course of understanding, must be held to
\nbe disjunctive – vide AIR 1980 SC 360 (Delhi Municipality vs.  Tekchand),  AIR
\n1980 SC 21 81  (L.I.C.    of  India  vs.   D.J.  Bahadur) and AIR<\/a> 1992 SC 2188
\n(State of Punjab vs.  Ram Singh).  Therefore, it was open to the appellants to
\nchoose persons from one category or the other.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  Before dealing with the question  whether  it  was  open  to  the
\nappellants  to  have  decided to appoint Junior Auditors by transfer only from
\nthe posts of  Junior  Assistants  and  not  from  the  posts  of  Typists  and
\nAssessors,  it  is  necessary  to first deal with the legal position regarding
\njudicial review of administrative decisions.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  In Tata Cellular Vs.  Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 the  Supreme
\nCourt dealt with this question in great detail and held:-
\n(1)     The modern trend points to judicial restraint in        administrative
\naction;<\/p>\n
\n(2)     The Court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely   reviews   the\nmanner in which the decision    was made;\n<\/pre>\n
(3)The Court does  not  have  the  expertise  to  correct  the  administrative
\ndecision.   If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be
\nsubstituting its own decision, without the necessary  expertise  which  itself
\nmay be fallible.\n<\/p>\n
The above principles have been laid down by the Supreme Court in Tata Cellular
\nCase  (supra)  after an exhaustive consideration of the case law and the other
\nauthorities on the  subject.    This  decision  has  been  followed  in  Delhi
\nDevelopment Authority Vs.    M\/s.UEE  Electrical  Engg.  (P) Ltd., AIR 2004 SC
\n2100 (vide paragraphs 11 to 15).\n<\/p>\n
13.  In G.B.Mahajan and Others Vs.  The Jalgaon Municipal Council and  Others,
\nAIR  1991 SC 1153 (vide paragraph – 14) the Supreme Court quoted the following
\nremarks of Sir Gerard Brennan in “Judicial Review of Administrative Action  in
\nthe 1980s”:-\n<\/p>\n
“The  Courts  are  kept out of the lush field of administrative policy, except
\nwhen the policy is inconsistent with the express or implied  provisions  of  a
\nstatute….or  when  a  decision made in purported exercise of a power is such
\nthat a repository of the power, acting reasonably and in good faith, could not
\nhave made it.  In the latter  case,  ‘  something  overwhelming’  must  appear
\nbefore the Court will intervene ( emphasis supplied)”.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  In  Premium  Granites  and  Another  Vs.  State of Tamil Nadu and
\nothers, AIR 1994 SC 2233 (vide paragraph – 52)the Supreme Court observed:-\n<\/p>\n
                “It is not the domain of the Court to embark upon  unchartered
\nocean  of  public policy in an exercise to consider as to whether a particular
\npublic policy is wise or a better public policy can be evolved.  Such exercise
\nmust be left to the discretion of the executive and legislative authorities as
\nthe case may be.  The Court is called upon  to  consider  the  validity  of  a
\npublic  policy  only  when  a  challenge  is  made  that  such policy decision
\ninfringes fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of  India  or  any
\nother statutory right.”\n<\/p>\n
        15.   As  regards the claim of the writ petitioners that the policy of
\nthe appellant-Board violates the legitimate expectation of the  Assessors  and
\nTypists,  this contention is negatived by the decision of the Supreme Court in
\nUnion of India Vs.  International Trading Company, JT 2003 (4)  SC  549  (vide
\nparagraphs – 20 and 21), wherein it was observed that the change in policy can
\ndefeat  a  substantive  legitimate  expectation  if  it  can  be  justified on
\n“Wednesbury reasonableness”.   The  decision  maker  has  the  choice  in  the
\nbalancing of  the  pros and cons relevant to the change in policy.  Therefore,
\nit is clear that the choice of policy is for the decision maker  and  not  the
\nCourt.   The  legitimate  substantive  expectation merely permits the Court to
\nfind out if the change  of  policy  which  is  the  cause  for  defeating  the
\nlegitimate  expectation  is  irrational or perverse or one which no reasonable
\nperson could have made.  In the present case, in our opinion, the policy  laid
\ndown  by the letter dated 16.10.2004 was not so irrational or perverse that no
\nreasonable person could have made it.  Hence, in our opinion, the said  policy
\nis  not  arbitrary  or illegal as per the standards laid down by the aforesaid
\ndecision of the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  In Federation of Railway Officers’  Association  and  Others  Vs.
\nUnion  of  India,  (2003)  4 SCC 289 the Supreme Court observed that the Court
\nshould not interfere with the matters affecting policy, but should leave  such
\nmatters for  decision  to  those qualified to address the issues.  A policy or
\naction of the Government, unless inconsistent with the  Constitution  and  the
\nlaws or arbitrary or irrational or abuse of power, was not subject to judicial
\nreview.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  In  State of Punjab and Others Vs.  Ram Lubhaya Bagga and Others,
\n(1998) 4 SCC 117 the Supreme Court observed that the  State  had  a  right  to
\nchange its  policy  from  time  to time under the changing circumstances.  The
\nwisdom of the policy cannot be judicially scrutinised  though  the  Court  can
\nconsider whether the policy is arbitrary or violative of law.  In our opinion,
\nthe  policy  laid  down  by the latter of the appellant-Board dated 16.10.2004
\ncannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal for the reasons mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  In the present case, evidently a policy decision has  been  taken
\nby  the  appellant-Board  that the post of Junior Auditor will be filled in by
\ntransfer only from  the  Junior  Assistants  and  not  from  the  Typists  and
\nAssessors.   The  reason  for this policy decision was that there were already
\n250 vacancies in the posts of  Typists  and  170  vacancies  in  the  post  of
\nAssessors.  Hence, the transfer from these posts to the post of Junior Auditor
\nwould  mean  further depletion of the already depleted strength of Typists and
\nAssessors.  We cannot say that this is an arbitrary or unreasonable  decision.
\nAfter  all  it is for the appellant-Board to manage the administration, and as
\nlong as they do not act in a totally arbitrary manner, it is  not  proper  for
\nthis Court  to  interfere.    As observed by a Division Bench of this Court in
\nRama Muthuramalingam Vs.  Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mannargudi, AIR 200
\n5 Madras 1, this Court must exercise  judicial  restraint,and  not  ordinarily
\ninterfere with  legislative or executive decisions.  The decision taken by the
\nappellant-Board was an administrative  decision,  and  it  is  ordinarily  not
\nproper  for  this  Court  to  interfere  in administrative decisions except on
\nWednesbury principles.(See Associated Provincial  Picture  Houses  Ltd.    Vs.
\nWednesbury Corporation, 1948 1 K.B.  223 and Union of India Vs.  G.Ganayutham,
\nAIR 1997  SC 3387 vide paragraphs 1 0 and 28).  In our opinion, the Wednesbury
\nprinciple does not apply in the present case, for the reasons mentioned above.
\nMoreover, when some Junior Assistants are in excess of the required  strength,
\nand  some  posts  of Junior Assistants have to be abolished, there was nothing
\narbitrary in the administrative decision of the appellant-Board to shift  some
\nof them  to  the  post  of  Junior  Auditor.  These are all administrative and
\npolicy matters and as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Tata  Cellular  Case
\n(supra)  the  modern  trend  is  towards  judicial restraint in administrative
\nmatters.  In the present case, the appellantBoard has taken an  administrative
\ndecision  to  fill the post of Junior Auditor only from the Junior Assistants.
\nThat was  a  policy  decision  taken  on  a  relevant  consideration,  already
\nmentioned above, namely, that there were vacancies on the posts of Typists and
\nAssessors, and  there  was  excess  strength of Junior Assistants.  This Court
\ncannot sit in appeal over such an administrative decision.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  We may mention that it is well settled that the Court should  not
\ninterfere  with  an  administrative or policy decision merely because it is of
\nthe view that a better decision could have been taken by the<\/p>\n
executive.  As observed by the Supreme Court in Haryana Financial  Corporation
\nVs.  M\/s.Jagadamba Oil Mills, AIR 2002 SC 834 (vide paragraph – 10)
\n                “In the matter of administrative action, it is well known that
\nmore than  one  choice  is  available to the administrative authorities.  They
\nhave a certain amount of discretion available to them.  They have ‘a right  to
\nchoose  between  more  than  one possible course of action upon which there is
\nroom for reasonable people to hold differing opinions as to  which  is  to  be
\npreferred’.  (per Lord Diplock in Secretary of State for Education and Science
\nVs.  Metropolitan  Borough  Council  of  Tameside,  1977  AC 1014).  The Court
\ncannot substitute its judgment for the judgment of administrative  authorities
\nin such  cases.    Only  when the action of the administrative authority is so
\nunfair or unreasonable that no reasonable person would have taken that action,
\nthe Court can intervene.”\n<\/p>\n
        20.   Thus,  the  Court  should  not  interfere  with  the  policy  or
\nadministrative  decision  merely  because it is of the view that a better view
\ncould been taken by  the  executive.    It  is  only  where  the  decision  is
\nshockingly  arbitrary  in  the  sense that no reasonable person could possibly
\nhave taken such a  decision,  then  the  Court  can  interfere.    Within  the
\nparameters  of  the  law  the administration has a large number of options and
\nchoices, and as long as the  law  is  not  broken  and  the  decision  is  not
\nshockingly  arbitrary,  the Court should not interfere with the decision taken
\nby the executive.\n<\/p>\n
        21.  In the present case, it may be  that  the  appellant  could  have
\ntaken  some  other  decision  which  the  Court feels would have been a better
\ndecision, but on that ground the Court cannot over turn  the  decision  as  it
\ncannot  be  said  to  be so absurd that no sensible person could possibly have
\ntaken such a decision.\n<\/p>\n
        22.  We may further mention that even assuming  that  the  promotional
\naspects  of  the Typists and Assessors will be affected that alone cannot be a
\nground for our interference with the policy decision of the  appellants  which
\nhas been  taken,  as  mentioned  above,  on relevant considerations.  It often
\nhappens that policy or administrative decisions cause hardship to some people,
\nbut on that ground the said decision cannot be set  aside,  otherwise,  almost
\nall administrative  and policy decisions will have to be set aside.  The Court
\nmust exercise restraint and  give  some  elbow  room  and  free  play  to  the
\nadministration,  otherwise,  it  may  well  nigh  become  difficult to run the
\nadministration.\n<\/p>\n
        23.     In these circumstances, the decision of the appellants  cannot
\nbe interfered  with.    Hence,  the impugned order of the learned single Judge
\ncannot be sustained and is therefore set aside.  The writ appeal  is  allowed.
\nConsequently, connected W.A.M.P.  is closed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
gs.\n<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Chairman,
\nTamilnadu Electricity Board,
\nAnna Salai,
\nChennai-2.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Chief Engineer (Personnel),
\nTamilnadu Electricity Board,
\nAnna Salai,
\nChennai-2.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Tamilnadu Electricity vs Bharathiya Electricity … on 7 April, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 07\/04\/2005 C O R A M The Hon’ble Mr. MARKANDEY KATJU, Chief Justice and The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice PRABHA SRIDEVAN Writ Appeal No.520 of 2005 and W.A.M.P.No.964 of 2005 1. The Tamilnadu […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8683","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Tamilnadu Electricity vs Bharathiya Electricity ... on 7 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Tamilnadu Electricity vs Bharathiya Electricity ... on 7 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-25T09:00:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Tamilnadu Electricity vs Bharathiya Electricity … on 7 April, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-25T09:00:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005\"},\"wordCount\":3556,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005\",\"name\":\"The Tamilnadu Electricity vs Bharathiya Electricity ... on 7 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-25T09:00:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Tamilnadu Electricity vs Bharathiya Electricity … on 7 April, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Tamilnadu Electricity vs Bharathiya Electricity ... on 7 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Tamilnadu Electricity vs Bharathiya Electricity ... on 7 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-25T09:00:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Tamilnadu Electricity vs Bharathiya Electricity … on 7 April, 2005","datePublished":"2005-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-25T09:00:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005"},"wordCount":3556,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005","name":"The Tamilnadu Electricity vs Bharathiya Electricity ... on 7 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-25T09:00:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tamilnadu-electricity-vs-bharathiya-electricity-on-7-april-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Tamilnadu Electricity vs Bharathiya Electricity … on 7 April, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8683","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8683"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8683\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8683"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8683"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8683"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}