IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 172 of 2008(U) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------ AJAYAKUMAR S., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (TRANSMISSION CIRCLE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 621. BY SC SRI. K.S.ANIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 172 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 2nd January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board . He was earlier working as Sub Engineer. He was originally holding a Diploma and subsequently he acquired a B.Tech Degree. As per the Recruitment Rules to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), the 10% of the vacancies were earmarked for employees of the Electricity Board. The Electricity Board instead of promoting qualified hands in the Board was filled by hands on Contract/Hand Receipt basis. 2. The said method of filling up of vacancies in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) was challenged by the petitioner and three others in W.P.(C) 496 of 2006. Pursuant to the interim passed in the above case, the 2nd respondent vide order dated 5.11.2007 regularised the service of the all those Assistant Engineers (Electrical) who were appointed on temporary basis. It seems that some persons who had also W.P ( C) No. 172 of 2008 2 aspired for promotion in the 10% quota raised a complaint that some of the persons who have been promoted were not actually qualified as on 31.1.2005. Exhibit P1 certificate shows that the petitioner has successfully completed his AMIE Course in the year 2004 Complaint so raised seems to have been accepted by the Chief Engineer who has issued Exhibit P4 order asking the petitioner to show cause the appointment to the the cadre of Assistant Engineer under 10% quota should not be cancelled. Though the petitioner had appeared in the examination held in 2004, the results of the examination were published only on later. Therefore, the petitioner could not be considered as qualified as on 31.1.2005. Exhibit P4 is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner N. Reghuraj submits that the Chief Engineer has failed to take note of Rule 28 (bbb) of Part II of K.S & S.S.R which declares that where the right to get appointment to the post depends on the acquisition of a qualification in a test or any examination, the right must be deemed to be available with reference to the day following the last day of the examination which the incumbents must have W.P ( C) No. 172 of 2008 3 successfully participated in, and not the date of publication of the result. He also referred to the decision of this Court in Raghavan Pillai Vs. Government of Kerala [1989 (2) KLT 950] 4. Learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board Mr. K.P. Anil submits that the examination in question is not a departmental test and therefore the benefit under Rule 28 (bbb) of Part II of K.S.& S.S.R would not be available to the petitioner. 5. In my view, it is appropriate that the issue is dealt with by the Board itself. I also take note of the fact that apart from the aspects which have been mentioned in the notice issued by the Chief Engineer, the competent authority will also have to verify the number of vacancies which were to be filled up under the 10% Engineering Graduates quota and whether there were other qualified persons available as on that date. N.Reghuraj, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a reading of Exhibit P4 notice does not suggest that there is any dispute on this aspect. I am not expressing any opinion on the said issue at this stage. W.P ( C) No. 172 of 2008 4 In the result, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the Board with a representation in the form of a revision against Exhibit P4 issued by the Chief Engineer (HRM), detailing the above mentioned aspects. If it is so done within three weeks, the Board shall hear the petitioner and any other affected persons, conduct necessary enquiry and take a decision on the petitioner's claim, within a period of three months thereafter. Since the petitioner was actually promoted and is continuing in the said post, I direct that he shall not be reverted from the post of Assistant Engineer till a decision is taken by the Board, in the manner aforementioned. The other contentions of the petitioner are left open. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 172 of 2008 5 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER W.P ( C) No. 172 of 2008 6 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER 25th May, 2007