IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14008 of 2009(U)
1. M.SELVARAJ, SUB ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM),
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
For Respondent :SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :15/10/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No.14008 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 15th October,2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is working as Sub Engineer (Electrical)
Trainee. He was appointed in the said post while working
as Meter Reader. The Board had issued Ext.P1 order
providing for engagement of Meter Readers as Sub
Engineer (Electrical) Trainees without conferring on them
any right to claim promotion to the cadre of the Sub
Engineer (Electrical) on the basis of such engagement.
Accordingly the petitioner was appointed as Sub Engineer
(Electrical) Trainee on the basis of Ext.P1. (Serial No.317
in Ext.P1). While so, further operation of Ext.P1 had been
stayed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions and it
seems that taking note of the same, the Chief Engineer
(HRM) had issued Ext.P3 inter alia directing reversion of
the persons mentioned therein which included the
petitioner. Consequently Ext.P4 order was passed.
Exts.P3 and P4 have been challenged in the writ petition.
2. This Court had granted an order of status quo
on 22.5.2009, which has continued and the petitioner
continues to serve in the cadre of Sub Engineer
W.P ( C) No.14008 of 2009
2
(Electrical) Trainee as per Ext.P1. Writ petition No.562 of
2009 and connected writ petitions have been disposed of by a
common judgment. Though the correctness of Ext.P1 was
challenged in some of those writ petitions this court did not
interfere with the same, but subject to certain conditions
mentioned therein, the Board has been permitted to proceed
further with Ext.P1.
In these circumstances, there does not seem to be any
warrant for reversion of the petitioner. Exts.P3 and P4 are
therefore quashed giving liberty to the Board to take further
action pursuant to Ext.P1 as is permissible in law.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No.14008 of 2009
3
W.P ( C) No.14008 of 2009
4