Read Time: 06 minutes

Justice Subramaniam of Madras High Court recently observed that appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules in force even though equal opportunities in public employment is the Constitutional mandate. Court noted that appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of absolute right.

The above was held in a case where a group of persons who wanted to be recruited by Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation & Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO) moved the High Court. The petitioners sought directions from the court to TANGEDCO  to appoint them as Field Assistants (Trainees).

The counsel for the petitioners argued that pursuant to the notifications issued in 2016, the petitioners participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Field Assistant (Trainee), however, they did not fall within the zone of consideration and were not appointed.

They also contended that subsequently, thousands of vacancies in the cadre of Field Assistant arose but TANGEDCO did not initiated any action to fill up those posts by providing an opportunity to the persons who have participated in the selection during the year 2016.

It was argued that several Gangmen were appointed in TANGEDCO. The Gangmen were all utilized to perform the duties of the Field Assistant and several accidents occurred. The counsel argued that concerns raised in this regard are not addressed by the competent authorities at TANGEDCO.

Court, on hearing the arguments, noted that certain serious concerns raised by the counsel for petitioners were to be looked at. It, however, noted that those concerns could not be a reason for granting the relief of appointment in favor of the petitioners.

It was further noted that the relief sought for and the right established were to be tested for the purpose of issuing a direction. The court, therefore, took note of the fact that in the present case, the petitioners had participated in the process of selection for the year 2016 and they were not within the zone of consideration for appointment.

Court, thus, held that it was of the opinion that appointment can never be claimed as a matter of absolute right and appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules in force.

It was further held by the court that whenever a decision is taken for recruitment, the competent authorities are bound to follow the recruitment rules in force by providing equal opportunities to all the candidates who are aspiring for securing public employment.

However, Court also noted, "The process of selection for the post of Field Assistant is to be conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and the selection of the year 2016 cannot be considered now after a lapse of six years, more specifically, for the purpose of issuing a direction to appoint the writ petitioners as Field Assistants."

The writ petition thus came to be dismissed by granting liberty to the petitioners to participate in the selection process in the future if the posts become vacant.

Case title: Thanaseelvi Mary Vs TANGEDCO