IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 307 of 2009(J)
1. SHEELA.K.P., AGED 38, W/O.BABY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KSEB,
3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
For Petitioner :SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)
For Respondent :SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :14/01/2010
O R D E R
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J
...........................................
WP(C).NO.307 OF 2009
............................................
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was a candidate, who was included in the rank list,
prepared by the PSC for appointment to the post of Sub Engineer
(Civil) in KSEB. Pursuant to a written test and interview, the PSC
published a rank list in which the petitioner was Rank No.262. There
was an original petition, O.P.31516 of 2001, in which this court had
passed an interim order on 30.1.2002 directing the first respondent to
report all the non-joining vacancies to the third respondent.
Accordingly 17 NJD vacancies were reported and appointments were
made to the said vacancies, in compliance with the interim order of this
court. The case of the Board is that though appointments were made in
compliance with the order of this court, there were actually no such
vacancies because of the paucity of civil work in KSEB. According to
the Board, 320 candidates are working against the available number of
142 posts. In view of the above position, though the petitioner and
others were permitted to join duty, they were retrenched for want of
Wpc 307/09 2
vacancies. At present, they claim regular appointment.
2. As per judgment dated 23.10.2009, this court has finally
disposed of a similar writ petition, WP(C)12176 of 2008. This court
has noted in the said judgment that in view of the non availability of
vacancies for persons like the petitioner, appointment could be claimed
by such persons only as and when posts are sought to be filled up
through direct recruitment. In the above circumstances, this writ
petition can also be disposed of with a similar direction.
3. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. However,
this judgment does not stand in the way of the petitioner claiming
appointment as and when vacancy arises in direct recruitment quota.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
lgk