IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20889 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.A.RASHEED, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL), K.S.E.B, INVESTIGATION CIRCLE, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, THRISSUR. 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.), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SC SRI.K.S.ANIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).20889/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner entered service in the KSEB as Sub Engineer on 9.8.1999. He is a Diploma holder in Civil Engineering. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer in the year 1996. In the matter of promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, a ratio of 3:1 among the Degree and Diploma holders was prescribed. According to the petitioner, the cadre strength of Assistant Executive Engineers in KSEB is 164. If the ratio as above mentioned is applied, 123 Degree holders and 41 Diploma holders would be entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. Ext.P1 order shows that on 14.8.2007, the Board decided to promote 16 Diploma Assistant Engineers as Assistant Executive Engineers provisionally. Promotions in respect of three out of the said 16 persons are withheld and this includes the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that two out of the said three persons, whose promotions are shown to be withheld, have subsequently W.P.(C).20889/2008 2 been promoted. Petitioner alone remains as an Assistant Engineer. Disciplinary proceedings have not been completed. Even a memo of charges has not been issued. In such circumstances, there is no justification in withholding the petitioner’s promotion which in any way as per Ext.P1, is only provisional. 2. I heard learned Standing Counsel for the Board also. I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P2 with specific reference to the question as to whether two persons, whose provisional promotion under Ext.P1 is shown to be withheld, have been subsequently promoted and whether they were also subjected to the same disciplinary proceedings as the petitioner is subjected to. If that be the case, I do not find any reason why the petitioner should be discriminated. Orders on Ext.P2 shall be W.P.(C).20889/2008 3 passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs