IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20219 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. C.A.PADMANABHAN, ASSISTAN EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, CIVIL CIRCLE, MEENCUT, CHITHIRIPURAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. N.ANIL KUMAR, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, INVESTIGATION DIVISION, PADINJARETHARA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. SHIRLY.J.L, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, O/O.CHIEF ENGINEER (C.C.NORTH) KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. VIJAYASREE K.S., ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (C.C.NORTH), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (K.S.E.B.IN SHORT), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M.), K.S.E.B, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SC SRI.K.S.ANIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).20219/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are presently working as Assistant Executive Engineers in the KSEB. They are B.Tech Degree holders and were originally appointed as Sub Engineers. There is a ratio of 5 : 3 : 2 among the Degree, Diploma and Certificate holders of Sub Engineers, for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers. According to the petitioners, they should have been promoted with effect from 1995. There were sufficient number of vacancies, in the quota available to the Degree holders among the Sub Engineers and they became qualified on 25.4.1995, 3.5.1995 and 14.5.1995 respectively. But apparently petitioners were promoted only on 14.5.1996, 15.5.1996, 14.2.1996 and 14.5.1996 respectively. They claim re-assignment of the date of promotion pointing out that though there were vacancies in the quota available for Degree holders, there was excess recruitment of direct recruits and it is therefore, their promotion was actually delayed. They have brought W.P.(C).20219/2008 2 this to the notice of the second respondent by Exts.P4 to P7. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board. I have through the writ petition as also Exts.P4 to P7. 3. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider Exts.P4 to P8 and take a decision thereon, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any person will be affected by the re-assignment of the date of promotion of the petitoiners, they shall also be heard before a decision is taken as aforementioned. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs