High Court Kerala High Court

Bini K.P. vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 6 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Bini K.P. vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 6 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 2925 of 2009()


1. BINI K.P., D/O.PADMANABHAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER(HRM),

3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH

                For Respondent  :SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR

 Dated :06/01/2010

 O R D E R
        K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
              ----------------------------------------------
                     W.A. No.2925 of 2009
              ----------------------------------------------
                    Dated 6th January, 2010.

                          J U D G M E N T

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The appellant is the writ petitioner. She was a

candidate included in the rank list prepared by the PSC for

appointment to the post of Sub Engineer. But the KSEB decided

to abolish certain posts of Sub Engineers as part of economy

measure. Therefore, there were no vacancies to accommodate

the candidates included in the ranked list. The persons included

in the rank list like the appellant, approached this court. This

court issued a direction to appoint the petitioners therein who

might have got appointment, but for the abolition of the posts,

notionally to the service of the KSEB and also to retrench them

immediately. The said direction was issued by this court to

enable the appellant and others to get appointment under the

KSEB, whenever direct recruitment is made from the open

WA NO.2925/09 2

market. In obedience to that direction, the appellant and others

were appointed and retrenched, by Ext.P1 order. Now there are a

few vacancies in the KSEB in the post of Sub Engineer. So the

appellant, claiming one of those vacancies, filed this writ petition.

But the KSEB resisted the prayer of the petitioner/appellant,

contending that she has a claim only to get appointment when

recruitment is made from the open market. Only 30% of the

vacancies in the cadre of Sub Engineer are reserved to be filled

up from the open market. At present, there are excess direct

recruits, having regard to the cadre strength. According to them,

only 142 posts are available for direct recruitment, but 320 direct

recruits are working. Therefore, the claim of the appellant was

untenable, it was submitted. The learned Single Judge upheld

the contention of the KSEB and overruled the contention of the

appellant that irrespective of the quota, whenever a vacancy

arises, she being a retrenched hand, should be accommodated.

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, this writ appeal is filed.

2. We heard the learned counsel Sri.Alexander Joseph

for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB.

WA NO.2925/09 3

The point to be decided is whether the appellant, as a retrenched

employee, can claim appointment to any vacancy arising in the

cadre of Sub Engineer. In this case, we notice that the appellant,

as a candidate included in the rank list, had claim only to the

vacancies available in the direct recruitment quota. Since several

posts were abolished, the appellant could not have been

appointed. So, to safeguard the interest of the appellant and

others, this court thought, they should be considered in future

vacancies arising in that quota. They can be considered if only

they are advised, appointed and thereafter retrenched.

Otherwise, once the PSC list expires, they will not have any claim

for appointment. To get over this legal hurdle, and having

regard to the special facts of this case, certain directions were

issued by this court and on the strength of those directions,

Ext.P1 appointment order was issued. The retrenchment under

Ext.P1 cannot be treated as a normal retrenchment of an

employee who was working for some time and thereafter, owing

to absence of vacancy, the incumbent was retrenched. In view of

the above position, we agree with the stand of the KSEB and also

WA NO.2925/09 4

with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the

writ appeal is dismissed.

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE.

tgs

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.

———————————————-

W.A. No.2925 of 2009

———————————————-

J U D G M E N T

Dated 6th January, 2010.