IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 26351 of 2005(K) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. SUDHAKARAN K.K., LINE MAN GRADE-I, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOTTAYAM EAST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. M. BIJU, LINE MAN GRADE-I, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAKATHANAM, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN, SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR, SMT.THARA THAMBAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.26351/2005 K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD. 16/09/2004. P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 28/03/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 28/03/2005 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EB/LAW/WP 11445/2005 DTD. 29/06/2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 26351 of 2005 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 1st day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioners were originally appointed as electricity workers in the Kerala State Electricity Board, on 18.3.1996. They joined duty on 29.5.1996 and 23.5.1996. They were promoted as Linemen Grade-II on 30.6.1997 and 19.2.1999 respectively. They were further promoted as Linemen Grade-I on 5.3.2001. 25% of workers of meter readers are reserved to be filled up from Linemen grade-I. The petitioners were not given that promotion while their juniors were allegedly promoted. Therefore, the petitioners filed representations Exts.P2 and P3 in that respect. This Court, by Ext. P4 judgment in O.P. No. 5001/1994 directed consideration of the representations. By Ext. P5 order dated 29.6.2005, the Chief Engineer of he Board rejected the contention of the petitioners. The petitioners are challenging Ext. P5 order, seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to calling for the records leading u to Ext. P5 and quash Ext. P5. ii) to declare that the petitioners are entitled to be considered along with ITI holders for promotion to the post of meter readers against 25% quota. iii) to declare that the degree in Electrical Engineering is a super qualification to ITI and hence, to Diploma holders can be considered for promotion for which the minimum qualification prescribed is II or its equivalent. iv) the bringing down the seniority of the petitioners without notice to them and without an opportunity of being heard is unsustainable and that the ratio introduced after notification and receipt of applications is unsustainable. v) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to rectify the errors in the gradation list of Lineman Grade-I as pointed out by he petitioners, and give due place to the petitioners and also to direct the 1st respondent to include the name of the petitioners W.P.C. No. 26351/2005 -: 2 :- also in the gradation list of Lineman Grade-I on the basis of their seniority. vi) to direct the respondent to promote the petitioners also to the grade of Meter Readers against 25% quota with retrospective effect from the dates from which their juniors were given promotion as Meter Readers.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent supporting the impugned order. 3. I have considered the contentions in detail. The operative portion of Ext. P5 order reads thus: “The promotion to the cadre of Lineman Grade II is based on the Gradation List of Electricity Workers prepared in the ratio 2:1:1 between (1) ITI holders, (2) those who have passed Std. VII and (3) others possessing literacy. Further promotions to the cadre of Lineman Grade I is done based on the seniority in the cadre of Lineman Gr.II. While ordering promotion of Electricity Worker (Mazdoor) to the cadre of Lineman II in the ratio of 2:1:1 between ITI holders, those who have passed Std.VII and others possessing literacy vice proceedings No. EB4(a)/2002/144/LMII/PRO dated 3.2.2003, Sri. K.K. Sudharakaran has been given the Sl. No. 2156, Sri. T.K. Babu the Sl. No. 1970, Sri. Biju (the second petitioner) 2183 and Sri. P.K.Kumaan the Sl. No. 1994. The higher ranking given to S/s. T.K. Babu and P.K. Kumaran was due to the fact that the promotion to the cadre of Lineman Grade II is made from the category of Electricity Worker (Mazdoor) in the ratio of 2:1:1 between II holders, those who have passed Std. VII and others possessing literary. S/s. T.K. Babu and P.K Kumaran and other persons pointed out as juniors in the exhibit representations belong to ITI quota whereas the petitioners belong to a non ITI quota. When promotions to the cadre of Lineman II are ordered in the above prescribed ratio they happened to get higher rank/Sl. No. over the petitioners. By virtue of holding higher Sl. No. in the cadre of Lineman II they also happened to get higher rank No. in the gradation List of Lineman-I. Accordingly, in the Gradation List of Lineman I published as on 1.1.2004, the rank of S/s. K.K. Sudhakaran, M. Biju (Petitioners), T.K. Babu and P.K. Kumaran are 4405, 4432, 4219, 4243 respectively. As of now promotions to the category of Meter Reader under 25% quota have been given to the Lineman Gr I having prescribed qualification for the post of Meter Reader W.P.C. No. 26351/2005 -: 3 :- at the time of occurrence of the vacancies holding the Gradation No. 4293. Therefore the contention of the petitioners that their juniors have been promoted as Meter Readers is not true. In the circumstances stated above, the request of the petitioners to re-issue the Gradation List of Lineman Gr I on the basis of date of advice and to grant them promotion as Meter Reader against 25% quota with retrospective effect and other requests as contained in exhibit representations cannot be considered and hence declined. Ext. P1 and P2 representations are disposed of as above and ordered accordingly.” From the same, it is very obvious that the petitioners' grievances against the promotion of T.K. Babu and P.K. Kumaran were rejected on the ground that the petitioners were junior to the said persons. The petitioners' contention is that that seniority itself is wrong. I cannot consider those contention without hearing Sri. T.K. Babu and Sri. P.K. Kumaran insofar as they have been preferred to the petitioners for such promotion ahead of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are juniors to Sri. T.K. Babu and Sri. P.K. Kumaran. The petitioners have not chosen to implead them as parties to this writ petition. That being so, I cannot consider the validity of Ext. P5 or otherwise without them also in the party array. As such, the writ petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/