Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 07 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners B. Ramesh, P. Yosuva and K. Rajendran filed writ petitions (WP Nos. 34891‑34893 of 2012 and WMP Nos. 12950, 9371, 9370 of 2017) under Article 226 seeking a writ of certiorari and mandamus to quash termination proceedings dated 20 September 2005 and to be absorbed as permanent employees of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) with all consequential benefits.
  • Respondents: Chairman TNEB, Superintending Engineer TNEB (Electricity Distribution Circle, Thiruvannamalai), Executive Engineer TNEB (Operation & Maintenance, Vandhavasai, Tiruvannamalai District), the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government Co‑operative Food & Consumer Protection, Registrar of Co‑operative Society, Joint Registrar Co‑operative Department, Deputy Registrar Co‑operative Department, and Labour Inspector (all in Thiruvannamalai).
  • Petitioners claimed they were appointed as “Helper” on a temporary daily‑wage basis by the Vandhavasi Rural Electrical Co‑operative Society on 02 March 2000, that the society was later taken over by TNEB, and that they had worked continuously from 06 April 2002. They argued they were fully qualified for regularisation, that GO No. 86 dated 12 March 2001 and a Division Bench order (24 October 2002) should permit their absorption as permanent staff.
  • Respondents contended the appointment was made in excess of sanctioned cadre strength, not through the Employment Exchange as mandated by Rule 149(2) of the Tamil Nadu Co‑operative Society Rules 1988, and therefore GO No. 86 could not be invoked. They also highlighted that the petitioners filed the writ after a delay of four and a half years without any explanation, invoking the principles of delay and laches.
  • The court noted the petitioners failed to produce any record showing that the erstwhile society regularised their services, that their claim of permanent status from 01 July 2000 was unsupported, and that they only raised the GO No. 86 argument in an affidavit filed on 15 April 2024, i.e., after the hearing.
  • The Division Bench order of 24 October 2002 expressly held that GO No. 86 does not apply to employees recruited in violation of sub‑Rule (1) of Rule 149. The court also observed that the first respondent became functus officio after the impugned order dated 10 June 2008 and could not reconsider the matter.
  • Citing Supreme Court precedents (State of West Bengal v. B.B.M. Enterprises, 2026 SCC Online SC 980; Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley, (2024) 15 SCC 215), the court emphasized that unreasonable delay defeats equity and may justify dismissal of a writ petition.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petitions were held “devoid of merit” and dismissed. No order as to costs was made. All miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

Topics: Employment Regularisation, Judicial Dismissal