IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3412 of 2009(F)
1. ANNIE U.J.,
... Petitioner
2. GIRIJA DEVI M.S., ASSISTANT ENGINEER I
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM),
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAMESH BABU
For Respondent :SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :15/09/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.3412 of 2009-F
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are presently working as Assistant Engineers (Civil)
in the first respondent Board. The main relief sought for in the writ petition
is to quash Ext.P11 and to issue appropriate direction commanding the
respondents to review, revise and reorder the appointments ordered to the
10% quota in the category of Assistant Engineer (Civil) based on Ext.P6
final seniority list expeditiously and in any event within a time to be fixed
by this Court.
2. The petitioners were appointed through the Public Service
Commission as Sub Engineers (Civil) as per advice memo dated
19.10.1994. Regarding the further promotion to the post of Assistant
Engineer (Civil), the same has to be filled up by direct recruitment for 50%
and out of the 50% reserved for direct recruitment, 40% is filled up from
open market and the remaining 10% is reserved for Engineering Graduates.
3. The Board was considering the length of service of the
Engineering graduates as criteria for the purpose of appointment under the
10% quota. The said issue was finally resolved by Ext.P3 judgment of this
wpc 3412/2009 2
Court, wherein this Court held that it is only the date of effective advice
which has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixation of
seniority and not the actual date of joining duty. The said principle was
correctly followed by the Board and subsequent judgments have been
produced as Exts.P4 and P5.
4. Finally, by Ext.P5 judgment there was a direction to recast the
seniority list also and the same was implemented by the Board as per
Ext.P6. Going by Ext.P6, the petitioners are serial Nos. 9 and 13. The
same is a revised seniority list of Assistant Engineers (Civil) appointed in
the 10% in service quota from the cadre of Sub Engineer (Civil).
5. The petitioners thereafter claimed promotion as Assistant
Executive Engineer (Civil) and by Ext.P10 judgment, this Court directed the
Board to consider and pass orders on the representation in the light of the
legal position declared by this Court. In compliance of the directions
issued in Ext.P10 judgment, the Board has issued Ext.P11 order. But the
petitioners’ complaint is that their request for promotion has not been
considered for flimsy reasons.
6. A reading of Ext.P11 shows that the Board was of the view that
they are not in a position to promote the petitioners in the cadre of Assistant
Executive Engineer (Civil) and assign seniority of the same category before
wpc 3412/2009 3
the review of promotion of Assistant Engineer (Civil), as per the judgment
in W.P.(C) No.8236/2008 is completed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no
justification for denying the due promotion to the petitioners in the cadre of
Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil), since the matter has to go by the
seniority list Ext.P6 and a proper revision of the appointments ordered, has
to be made in terms of the said seniority list.
8. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the Board.
9. It is pointed out that the process of reviewing the promotions are
under way, as indicated in the counter affidavit and this will be completed
within a reasonable time.
10. In para 10 of the counter affidavit, it is pointed out that steps are
being taken to revert the persons holding the post of Assistant Executive
Engineer (Civil) as per Ext.P6 list. When that is done, none of those who
are juniors to the petitioners will be in the cadre of Assistant Executive
Engineers. Petitioners would be promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer
(Civil) as and when their turn arises in accordance with their seniority as
Assistant Engineer (Civil).
11. The above exercise has to be expedited to redress the grievance
of the petitioners. In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the
wpc 3412/2009 4
respondents to complete the process of review of promotions and grant the
consequential benefits to the petitioners, after considering their claims, and
in accordance with their seniority and turn for promotion, within a period of
three months from today.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/