N.SARAVANAN vs The Chairman -Cum- Managing Director
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP No. 39171 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
WP No. 39171 of 2026 & WP NO. 39176 OF 2026
CNR:{HCMA012277812026}
AND
WMP NO. 44979 OF 2026 & WMP NO. 44980 OF 2026
1.
N.Saravanan
2.
R.Kavitha
3. H.Pradhaban
4. D.Painthamilselvan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Chairman -Cum- Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation
Limited,
Erstwhile TANGEDCO Now (TNPDCL),
No.144,Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 002.
2.
The Chief Engineer/ Personnel Officer
/Recruitment
Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation
Limited,
Erstwhile TANGEDCO Now (TNPDCL),
No.144,Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 002.
3. The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
No.3, TNPSC Road,
V.O.C. Nagar, Chennai- 03.
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:46:19 pm )
WP No. 39171 of 2026
WP No. 39176 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012277822026}
1. P. Kuppusamy
2. C.Nagappan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Chairman -Cum- Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation
Limited,
Erstwhile TANGEDCO Now (TNPDCL),
No.144,Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer/ Personnel Officer
/Recruitment
Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation
Limited,
Erstwhile TANGEDCO Now (TNPDCL),
No.144,Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 002.
3. The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
No.3, TNPSC Road,
V.O.C. Nagar, Chennai- 03.
..Respondent(s)
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the
Petitioners’ representation dated 25.08.2026 and consequently permit the
Petitioners, being trained Ex- Apprentices Who have qualified in the written
Examination pursuant to Notification No. 13/ 2025, to participate in the
Physical Test notwithstanding the 1:3 shortlisting ratio, by extending the
preference contemplated under Section 22 (1) of the Apprentices Act, 1961
and the Apprentice Recruitment Policy dated 31.08.2017, without disturbing
the existing shortlist, and thereafter consider their candidature for appointment
to the post of Field Assistant, subject to their satisfying the prescribed
__________
Page2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:46:19 pm )
WP No. 39171 of 2026
Physical Test and other eligibility conditions.
WP No. 39176 of 2026
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the
Petitioners’ representation dated 25.08.2026 and consequently permit the
Petitioners, being trained Ex- Apprentices Who have qualified in the written
Examination pursuant to Notification No. 13/ 2025, to participate in the
Physical Test notwithstanding the 1.3 Shortlisting ratio, by extending the
preference contemplated under Section 22 (1) of the Apprentices Act, 1961 and
the Apprentice Recruitment Policy dated 31.08.2017, without disturbing the
existing shortlist, and thereafter consider their candidature for appointment to
the post of Field Assistant, Subject to their satisfying the prescribed Physical
Test and other eligibility conditions.
In both writ petitions
For Petitioner(s): M/s.Dakshayani Reddy,
Senior Counsel for M/s.T.Dharani
For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Loganathan, Standing Counsel
for R1 & R2
Mr.B.Vijay, Standing Counsel for R3
COMMON ORDER
The issue that arise for consideration in both these writ petitions is one
and the same, and as such both the matters are taken up for consideration
together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. In response to a requisition made by the respondents 1 and 2 vide
letters dated 19.07.2025 and 04.08.2025, proposing to fill up 1,850 vacancies in
__________
Page3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:46:19 pm )
WP No. 39171 of 2026
rd
the post of Field Assistant by direct recruitment, the 3 respondent herein
initiated the recruitment process by issuing Notification No.13/2025 dated
03.09.2025. In response to the said notification, the petitioners in both the writ
petitions have participated in the recruitment process and also appeared for the
written examination held on 16.11.2025, both in the forenoon and afternoon
rd
sessions. It was thereafter, the 3 respondent called upon the candidates who
emerged successful in the written examination for the physical test in the ratio
of 1:3.
3. It was at that stage, the petitioners herein have approached this Court
by filing the present writ petitions, contending that they have been trained as
nd
apprentices in the 2 respondent Corporation and therefore, they are entitled to
preferential treatment in terms of the provisions contained in Section 22(1) of
the Apprentices Act, 1961 read with the policy framed by the respondent
Corporation vide (Per.) (FB) TANGEDCO proceeding No.08, dated
rd
31.08.2017, but the 3 respondent is proceeding with the selection process
without giving effect to the above said policy of the respondent Corporation in
the matter of direct recruitment to the post of Field Assistant. Further, it is also
contended that the petitioners herein should be permitted to participate in the
physical test notwithstanding the ratio 1:3 and then they should be given
preferential treatment.
__________
Page4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:46:19 pm )
WP No. 39171 of 2026
rd
4. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the 3 respondent filed a
counter affidavit contending that the respondents 1 and 2, while sending the
requisition for filling up of the post in question, had not furnished any
information as to the policy of the respondent Corporation and therefore, the
same was not incorporated in the notification that was issued on 03.09.2025 and
the terms and conditions of notification cannot be altered after the recruitment
process has commenced and accordingly, the respondent No.3 claims to have
communicated the same to the respondent Corporation through its letter dated
18.06.2026. Thus, it is the stand of the Respondent No.3 that the Rules cannot
be altered in the middle of the recruitment process and therefore, the policy of
the respondent Corporation introduced through TANGEDCO proceeding No.08
dated 31.08.2017, cannot be given effect to in the present recruitment.
5. Mr.M.Loganathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2, does not dispute about the existence of policy and that the
respondents 1 and 2 have not informed the respondent TNPSC about the policy
of the respondent Corporation at the time of sending a requisition for filling up
of the posts in question.
6. Heard Ms.Dhakshayani Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for
__________
Page5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:46:19 pm )
WP No. 39171 of 2026
Ms.T.Dharani, for the petitioner, Mr.M.Loganathan, learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.B.Vijay, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent No.3.
7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either
side and also perused the entire material on record.
8. It is not in dispute that the policy decision taken by the respondent
Corporation through TANGEDCO proceeding No.8 dated 31.08.2017 do have
application for filling up the post of Field Assistant, which is the subject matter
of the notification issued by the respondent TNPSC. Whether the said policy
can be given effect to while concluding the recruitment process pursuant to the
notification dated 03.09.2025, without making any reference to the same in the
notification or not, is the only question that would fall for consideration in these
two writ petitions.
9. The policy decision of the respondent Corporation through
TANGEDCO proceedings dated 31.08.2017 is not an isolated decision, but the
same is pursuant to a statutory scheme provided under the Central Act, namely
the Apprentices Act, 1961. It was in terms of Section 22(1) of the said Act,
1961 and with a view to discharge its obligations, the respondent Corporation
__________
Page6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:46:19 pm )
WP No. 39171 of 2026
has formulated the policy referred to above. In terms of the Section 22(1) of the
Act, 1961, every employer shall formulate its own policy for recruiting the
apprentices who have completed the period of apprenticeship training in its
establishment. Thus, the said provision creates an obligation on the part of
every employer, including the respondent Corporation. Such an obligation was
discharged by the respondent Corporation by framing a policy on 31.08.2017.
Thus, the said policy is in the nature of a subordinate legislation pursuant to the
Central enactment. That is the law that would govern the recruitment in the
respondent Corporation.
10. No doubt, the respondents 1 and 2, while sending a requisition for
initiating the recruitment process have not informed the Respondent No.3 about
the said policy, either inadvertently or due to negligence.
11. Be that as it may, once the said policy is framed in discharge of a
statutory obligation and the same is having the status of subordinate legislation
and the said policy governs any recruitment in the respondent Corporation, the
respondent TNPSC is bound to give effect to the same, notwithstanding the fact
that there was no reference to the said policy in the notification. That is the law
that would govern the filling up of the post of Field Assistant in the respondent
Corporation. The respondent TNPSC is supposed to undertake recruitment
__________
Page7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:46:19 pm )
WP No. 39171 of 2026
process in accordance with law and by duly applying the law that is applicable
to the post of Field Assistant in the respondent Corporation. Once it is
concluded that the said policy decision is a subordinate legislation and pursuant
to the mandate under the provisions of Central Act, the respondent TNPSC
cannot refuse to give effect to the same solely on the ground that the same has
not been notified in the notification in question. Once the law mandates that a
particular procedure is to be followed while filling up any post in the respondent
Corporation, the respondent TNPSC is expected to undertake recruitment
process by following the law that is applicable. Nobody can be permitted to
plead ignorance of law and therefore, whether there is any reference to the
policy in question in the notification or not hardly makes any difference.
12. In the instant case, admittedly, the policy decision taken by the
respondent Corporation through TANGEDCO proceeding No.8 dated
31.08.2017 would apply to the post of ‘Field Assistant’ and therefore, there is
no question of changing the terms of the game in the middle, as contended by
the respondent TNPSC. As the request of the petitioners in these writ petitions
is only to apply the law that is otherwise applicable for filling up the post of
‘Field Assistant’ in the respondent Corporation, there is no need for the
respondent TNPSC to notify the same in the notification.
__________
Page8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:46:19 pm )
WP No. 39171 of 2026
13. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is
absolutely no justification for the respondent TNPSC in refusing to give effect
to the policy decision, while concluding the recruitment process pursuant to the
notification dated 03.09.2021, despite a specific request made by the
respondents 1 and 2.
14. Insofar as the relief sought by the petitioners to call them for physical
test notwithstanding the ratio of 1:3 is concerned, the same is beyond the scope
of the above said policy and hence, they are not entitled for the same.
15. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of, directing the
Respondent No.3 to give effect to the policy of the respondent Corporation, as is
evident from TANGEDCO proceeding No.8 dated 31.08.2017, while
concluding the recruitment process pursuant to the notification No.13/2025
dated 03.09.2025, notwithstanding the fact that the same has not been indicated
in the notification in question.
16. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No
costs.
11-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
__________
Page9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:46:19 pm )
WP No. 39171 of 2026
dpa
To
1. The Chairman -Cum- Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited,
Erstwhile TANGEDCO Now (TNPDCL),
No.144,Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer/ Personnel Officer /Recruitment
Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited,
Erstwhile TANGEDCO Now (TNPDCL),
No.144,Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 002.
3. The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
No.3, TNPSC Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Chennai- 03.
__________
Page10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:46:19 pm )
WP No. 39171 of 2026
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR J.
dpa
WP No. 39171 of 2026
AND
WP NO. 39176 OF 2026,WMP NO. 43979 OF 2026,WMP NO. 43981 OF
2026,WMP NO. 44979 OF 2026,WMP NO. 44980 OF 2026
11-11-2026
__________
Page11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:46:19 pm )