Supreme Court of India
T.N. ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.versusT.N .. ELECTRICITY BOARD THOZHILALAR AYKKIYA SANGAM
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 194
- Decided
- 14 February 2008
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
- Bench
- A K MATHURAFTAB ALAM
Holding
The Board’s policy embodied in Note 3 is a valid exercise of its authority and is not ultra vires Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Summary
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) had inserted Note 3 in its 1967 Service Regulations, stating that candidates holding National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate (NTC/NAC) recruited as Helpers could not be considered for internal promotion to Junior Assistant or Typist posts. The TNEB Thozhilalar Ayykkiya Sangam challenged this provision as violative of Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, arguing it was discriminatory. The Madras High Court struck down Note 3, allowing Helpers to compete for the administrative posts. TNEB appealed to the Supreme Court, which held that the Board’s policy of channeling Helpers to technical promotions was a rational administrative decision, not ultra vires the Constitution. Citing the principle that service rules may be amended and that employees have no vested right to unchanged conditions, the Court upheld Note 3. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgments, and restored the Board’s regulation.
Issues considered
- Whether Note 3 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, 1967, violates Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution by discriminating against Helpers holding NTC/NAC.
- Whether the Board’s policy of restricting promotion of Helpers to technical posts is arbitrary, unreasonable or ultra vires.
- Whether service rules can be amended to the detriment of existing employees without infringing constitutional guarantees.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16, s. Article 19(1)(g)
Subjects
Service lawPromotion policyDiscriminationArticles 14, 16, 19(1)(g)Administrative lawTamil Nadu Electricity BoardUnion challengeService regulations
Judgment
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 945
T.N. ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. A
v.
T.N ..ELECTRICITY BOARD THOZHILALAR AYKKIYA
SANGAM
(Civil Appeal No. 1279 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 14, 2008 a
- ~
~
(A.K. MATHUR AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.)
Service Law
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, 1967: c
Note-3 - Prescribing criteria of N. T. C. or N.A. C.
Certificate for post of Helper - Further laying down that
"candidates holding N. TC.IN.A. C. recruited as Helper shall
not be eligible for internal selection to post of Junior Assistant
D
and Typist including Steno-typist" - HELD: The TN. Electricity
Board has, on a rational basis, decided to lay down a
qualification for appointment to the post of Helper i.e. NTCI
NAC, and provided a channel of promotion for such persons
to the higher post on technical side - Such provision cannot
be said to be ultra vires Articles 14, 16 and 19(1 )(g) of the E
Constitution - This is a policy decision of Board and it is the
- Board who has to decide suitability and channel of promotion
for such post - It is prerogative of Board to decide that what
,,. shall be the channel of promotion for technical and for non
technical persons - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 and F
'• 19(1 )(g) - Administrative Law - Policy decision of
administrative authority
P. U. Joshi and Ors: Vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad
and Ors. 2003(2) sec 632 - relied on.
G
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction : Civil Appeal No. 1279 of
l~ 2008.
From the final Judgement and Order dated 20/04/2006 of
945 H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
A the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No. 1692/1999. k-
P.H. Parekh, E.R. Kumar, Shakun Sharma,Arjun Garg (for
Mis Parekh And Co.) for the Appellants.
V. Shekhar, Gulnar, G. Umapathy, Rohit Singh and Rakesh
B K. Sharma for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
,._ "!!-
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
c
This appeal by special leave is directed against the order
passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated
20th April, 2006 whereby the Division Bench has affirmed the
order passed by the learned Single Judge where the learned
D Single Judge has struck down Note 3 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity·
Board Service Regulation, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Regulations") and directed that all the persons who were
appointed Helpers may be considered for the post of Junior
Assistant and other administrative posts.
E Aggrieved against the said order of the Division Bench,
the present SpeCial Leave Petition has been filed.
For disposal of this appeal, it is necessary to refer a few 1-
,
11
facts:-
F Petition No.3314 of 1993 was filed by the Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board Thozhilalar Aykkiya Sangam, represented by
..,, I'...-
\
its General Secretary praying that Note 3 of the Regulation may
be declared as ultra vires being violative of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution.
G The grievance of the Sangam was that the classification
of candidates, holding l.T.I. Certificates and who have got ~,·
National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate
(NTC)/NAC) and recruited as Helpers in Regular Works
Establishment
I
(REW) as a distinct class is not based on any
H
--{
T.N. ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. TN. ELECT. 947
BOARD THOZHILALAR AYKKIYA SANGAM
...._ intelligible differentia, which has rational nexus to the objective A
of selection to the post of Junior Assistant/Assessors, etc. It is
also their grievance that in view of the above mentioned Note 3,
the members of their Association are debarred from applying
for the post of Junior Assistant along with other similarly placed
candidates, possessing lesser qualification. B
It was· also alleged by Electricity Board that the nature of
~
... work and channel of promotions to the Helpers in Regular Works
Establishment is entirely different from that of Junior Assistant/
Typist/Assessors. According to them, the Helpers are utilized
for field work of technical nature and their channel of promotion c
is Wireman, Lineman, Foreman and Junior Engineer whereas,
Junior Assistants are posted for clerical works in office in
Administrative and Accounts Cadre and their channel of
promotion is Assistant, Administrative/Accounts Supervisor and
Assistant Administrative Officer/Assistant Accounts Officer. D
, ..... Therefore, channels of promotions for these Helpers was
in technical side. It was submitted that this was a policy decision
taken by the Board in pursuance of the office order dated 23rd
May, 1986 on recommendations of Government. Henceforth the
post of Helper i.e. Fitter, Turner, Machinist etc. will be recruited E
out of the persons who possess N.T.C. or N.A.C. certificates
awarded by the National Council for Training and Vocational
Trade. Consequent to this resolution of the Board the T.N. Service
Reg_ulations were amended and Note 3 was inserted in those
regulations. Therefore, after the insertion of Note 3 the criteria F
·~
for selection for the post of Helper is that the incumbent should
• have the N.T.C. or N.A.C. certificate issued by the National
Council for Training and Vocational Trade and it was also clearly
stipulated in the resolution of the Board dated 23rd May, 1986
that "the candidates holding N.T.C./N.A.C. recruited as Helper G
shall not be eligible for internal selection to the post of Junior
Assistant and Typist including Steno-Typists".
- This resolution of the Board was incorporated in the
regulation in the same terms. Note 3 reads as under:-
H
'}-
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008f 2 S.C.R.
A "National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship .lo-
Certificate candidates recruited as Helpers shall not be eligible
for internal selection to the post of Junior Assistants and Typists
including Steno-Typists."
Therefore, this is a matter of policy decision taken by the
B
Board that henceforth the persons holding N.T.C./N.A.C.
appointed as Helpers will have the channel of promotion to the
technical post and not to the administrative post. It is true that
--
~
prior to 1986 the persons who were appointed as Helpers were
also appointed as Junior Assistants and Technicians in the
c office. After the decision taken by the Board Helpers have been
appointed who only possess the N.T.C./N.A.C. certificate. The
Board has now channelised the promotions of these persons in
the category of technical posts and not in the administrative :1
posts.
D
This is a policy decision taken by the Board and it has
been incorporated in service regulation. Therefore, the ).. '
candidates were recruited on the post of Helper possessing
this qualification, their channel of promotion is only to technical
post and there cannot be any doubt about it. This was a
E categorical policy decision taken by the Board and therefore,·
the channel of promotion of these persons now will be only to
the technical post and not to the administrative post. Therefore, v·
\
this provision which has been made in the service condition l
cannot be said to be discriminatory or arbitrary or violative under
a
F Article 19(1 )(g) in any manner. This is policy decision of the
-f'
Board and it is the Board who has to decide that who will be
suitable for the post and what should be the channel of promotion
for such post. It is not for the incumbent serving as a Helper to
insist that the Board should amend the Regulation which suits
G him. It is the prerogative of the Board to decide that what shall
•
be the channel of promotion for technical and for non technical
persons. In this case the Board has decided on a rational basis
that the· channel of promotion of technical persons will be on
technical side and not on the administrative side.
H
T.N. ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. T.N. ELECT. 949
BOARD THOZHILALAR AYKKIYA SANGAM
In this connection, our attention was invited to the decision A
-- of this Court in the case of P.U. Joshi and others versus
Accountant General, Ahmadabad and others reported in
2003(2) SCC 632 ~nd this Court has very categorically stated
that "There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that
rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the B
same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and
.... except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already
earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a
government servant has no right to challenge the authority of
the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating c
to even an existing service."
. Therefore, in this view of the matter that the Board has
decided to lay down a qualification for appointment to the post
of Helper i.e. NTC/NAC and provided a channel of promotion
for such persons to the higher post on technical side, such D
\ ~
provision cannot be said to be ultra vires of Articles 14, 16 and
19(1)(g).
Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of
the learned Single Judge and also the order of the Division Bench.
of the High Court.
E
No order as to costs.
R.P. Appeal allowed.
)~
F
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Service law"Sign in to search