IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 OP.No. 21312 of 2000(K) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M. DHANARAJAN NAIR, ESTIMATE COPYIST, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC RELATIONS, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHASUBRAMANIAN SRI.N.SUKUMARAN SRI.S.SHYAM SRI. PHILIP M. VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM - 4. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHEIF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CIVIL), GENERAL, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHUDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1, R3 SRI.R.K.VENU NAYAR, SC, KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 TO 3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 21312 of 2000(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO. BO. NO.613/96/BC/L/M/1/96 DATED 11.3.1996. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7.11.1998, BEARING NO. B.O.NO. 3439/98, SC/LTS/1/96. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15.12.1998. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21.1.1999. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.7.2000. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) - TRUE COPY FO THE SETTLEMENT 1995 ENTERED BETWEEN THE BOARD AND THE FOUNR TRADE UNIONS REPRESENTING THE BOARD'S WORKMEN. EXT.R1(b) - TRUE COPY OF THE B.O. NO. EBI-5144/75, DATED 02.12.1978. EXT.R1(c) - TRUE COPY OF THE B.O. NO. E.B.IV-2922/68, DATED 18.04.1970. EXT.R1(d) - TRUE COPY OF THE B.O.NO. 2144/95, PS(SD) 153/95, DATED 06.10.1995. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S.SIRI JAGAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.No.21312 of 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims that he joined the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board as on 5.1.1996 and thereafter he was appointed as an Estimate Copyist. He retired from service on 30.5.2000. At the relevant time there were only 14 estimate copyists under the board. They were the last batch of a vanishing category of employees of the Board. Taking into account the facts and circumstances, by Ext.P1 order, the board directed that all the existing 14 estimate copyists under the board shall be promoted to the cadre of Overseer (Civil) with prospective effect. However, by Ext.P2, the board cancelled Ext.P1 order. Petitioner's representation in this regard met with Ext.P5 order of rejection. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P2 and P5 and the provision in Ext.P1 making the promotion prospective seeking the following reliefs: “A. Call for the records relating to Exts.P1 to P5 from the Respondents; B. Quash Exts.P2 and P5 and the provision in Ext.P1 that it is only prospective, by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order; C. Declare that the petitioner and the other Estimate O.P.No.21312 of 2000 - 2 - Copyists who worked under the 1st Respondent are entitled to retrospective promotion as Overseer (Civil) in the 5% quota reserved for them as per the long term settlement dated 25.11.1978; D. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents 1 and 3 to promote the petitioner retrospectively as Overseer (Civil) as per the reservation of 5% quota given for Estimate Copyists, on the due date on which his turn arose, give him further eligible promotions and pay him benefits including arrears of pay and pensionary benefits accordingly;” 2. The contention of the petitioner is that as per the settlements applicable, estimate copyist are entitled to promotion as Overseer (Civil) which only was granted to the petitioner and others by Ext.P1. Therefore, Ext.P2 and consequently Ext.P5 are illegal and unsustainable is the submission made. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 in which they justify Exts.P2 and P5 on the ground that petitioner does not have the qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Overseer (Civil) from among the copyists in the 5% quota reserved for copyists as per the Long Term Settlement dated 25.11.1978. As per directions from this court the relevant settlements have been produced as Exts.R1(c) and R1(d). R1(c) contains qualifications prescribed for promotion of an estimate copyist as Overseer Grade II. As per the same, although the estimate copyists who have put in not less than 8 years service is entitled to a quota of 2% they should also possess the qualifications prescribed for promotion is the contention raised. O.P.No.21312 of 2000 - 3 - 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Although the petitioner tried to argue that the estimate copyists are exempted from possessing the qualifications prescribed, on going through the documents produced by the respondents, I do not find any such exemption from possessing the qualifications as prescribed in the recruitment rules given to estimate copyists. Although, 2% quota is prescribed for estimate copyists for promotion to the post of Overseer Grade II (Civil) that promotion is available only to those estimate copyists, who possess the prescribed qualification in Ext.R1(c). Admittedly the petitioner does not possess the prescribed qualifications. That being so, the petitioner cannot validly challenge Exts.P2 and P5. In fact it is not disputed before me that the petitioner has subsequently received three higher grades on account of the fact that he had been continuing in the post of estimate copyist without any promotion. As such the petitioner has got what petitioner was entitled to as per the service rules. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs