WP/39171/2026 of N.SARAVANAN Vs The Chairman -Cum- Managing Director on 11 November 2026

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 the post of Field Assistant by direct recruitment, the 3rd 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 sessions. It was thereafter, the 3rd 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 apprentices in the 2nd 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 31.08.2017, but the 3rd 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.

4. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the 3rd 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

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 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 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.

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 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.

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