IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 30979 of 2007(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.K.BABURAJ, AGED 42 YEARS, CASHIER TRAINEE, ELECTRICAL SECTION MATHAMANGALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) GENERAL, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 30979 of 2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1- A TRUE COPY OF the COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY POWER DEPARTMENT DATED 3.4.97 EXT.P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.9.98 EXT.P2(a)- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.10.98 EXT.P3- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF PROMOTION OF SPORTS RECRUITS BASED ON THE BOARD ORDER DATED 6.7.05 EXT.P3(a)- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTAION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P4- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.LAS/III/3027/2007 DATED 7.6.07 EXT.P5- A TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER DATED 6.7.05. (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C). 30979/2007 -------------------- Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Since a statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent and a reply affidavit is also filed by the petitioner, the writ petition itself has been taken up for hearing on consent of parties. Accordingly, I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.M.Sasindran and the learned Standing counsel for the Electricity Board, Mr.K.S.Anil. 2. Petitioner was originally appointed as electrical worker in the Electricity Board, with effect from 4.3.1989, in the sports quota. He submits that due to personal factors, he then aspired for better employment and was offered a job in the Syndicate Bank which he accepted. Apparently, he sought for permission from the Electricity Board to be relieved, which was not granted. Since the Board had not issued a relieving order, it seems that the petitioner submitted an application for resignation from the Board on 4.6.1989. Resignation was not accepted. In W.P.(C).30979/2007 2 the meanwhile petitioner could not secure job in the syndicate Bank also. There is a dispute as to why the resignation was not accepted. According to the Board, it was not accepted because, petitioner had executed a bond agreeing to serve the Board or remit an amount of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation. Since this was not done, the resignation was not accepted. 3. Sine the petitioner could not join the Syndicate Bank, he withdrew his resignation on 30.3.1991. He sought for permission to re-join duty in the Electricity Board. Board had originally declined permission on 5.8.1992. Ultimately pursuant to Ext.P1 request made by the Government, by Ext.P2 order dated 25.9.1998, and pursuant to the decision taken by the Full Board in the meeting held on 16.9.1998, it was decided that the petitioner be re-admitted for duty after condoning his absence from 4.6.1989. Actually petitioner was re- admitted to duty on 6.10.1998, as evidenced by Ext.P2 (a). He was later promoted as cashier trainee and he continues in service pursuant to Ext.P2(a). W.P.(C).30979/2007 3 4. The Board with a view to encourage sports in general and sports recruits in particular, passed an order on 6.7.2005 inter alia deciding to exclude sports recruits in the Board who have passed S.S.L.C and having length of service of five years or pre-degree having length of service of three years from the requirement of suitability. It seems that 44 eligible sports recruits thereafter, were promoted as Cashier as per Ext.P3 order. In that process, several persons who are juniors to the petitioner, having joined service in the Board subsequent to 6.10.1998, were also included in Ext.P3 order. Petitioner was aggrieved that he was not included in the said list and moved the Chairman by Ext.P3(a) request. This was rejected under Ext.P4 order passed by the Board and that has been challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. Petitioner contends that he is also entitled to be considered for appointment as Junior Assistant/Cashier in terms of the following decision taken by the Board as reflected in Ext.P5. W.P.(C).30979/2007 4 “Sports recruits, who have passed S.S.L.C and having length of service of 5 years or Pre-degree having length of service of 3 years, in the pay scale of and below that of Junior Assistant will be appointed as Junior Assistant/Cashier. They will be imparted with training for 6 months in the post of Junior Assistant/Cashier and will be regularized in that post on satisfactory completion of the training and prescribed probation period.” 5. A statement has been filed by the respondent inter alia justifying Ext.P4 order. The reason stated for excluding the petitioner from Ext.P3 list can be briefly stated as follows: 6. Board has been recruiting outstanding sports persons subject to maximum of 15 persons in an year. Sports persons should execute bond in order to ensure that they shall continue to play for the Board. Petitioner was recruited to the Board under the sports quota but he had violated the rules and regulations of the Board W.P.(C).30979/2007 5 defeating the very purpose of recruitment of sports persons, by resigning from the post deserting the KSEB football team to get a better opportunity elsewhere. His request for return to the Board by way of re-appointment was rejected by the Board but Government had intervened as a special case and directed to re-admit him. Apparently, petitioner did not participate in many tournaments after re-joining duty. He was aged 33 at the time of Ext.P1. He had participated only in three tournaments. It was decided that the petitioner need not be included in Ext.P3 or get the benefit granted by order dated 6.7.2005. 7. The short question for consideration is whether the Board is justified in denying the petitioner benefit of the Board order, B.O.(FB) 2076/05 (PR VIII/Sports/96/05). According to the Board, though the petitioner was recruited as an outstanding person for his contribution in the field of sports, he had not kept in his mind the interests of the Board, but had resigned from its service. His resignation was not accepted and he was re- W.P.(C).30979/2007 6 admitted to duty after a period of ten years. Apparently his contribution to the football team the Board was minimal after being re-admitted to duty. The main reason contained in Ext.P4 as also the statement seems to be that the petitioner has forfeited his authority to be considered as a sports person in the State, capable of making any contribution to the interest of the Board as such. May be the Board is justified in taking note of the fact that the petitioner was re-admitted to duty only after a gap of ten years and possibly, Board is also justified in taking note of the fact that the petitioner was not active in the field of sports after being re-admitted to duty, while having participated in only three tournaments. But a decision taken by the Board on 6.7.2005 conferring a benefit to the persons who have been recruited under the sports quota does not indicate exclusion of any person who has been otherwise recruited under the sports quota. The Board order dated 6.7.2005 does not indicate that though a person could have been recruited in the sports quota, he will be considered for the favoured treatment contemplated by the order dated W.P.(C).30979/2007 7 6.7.2005 only subject to any conditions that could have been legitimately prescribed by the Board in that regard. In other words, Board order dated 6.7.2005 does not contemplate any distinction between persons like the petitioner and any other person included in Ext.P3, who might have made more significant contributions in the field of sports, in his chosen field, after his appointment. Nor is there any residuary discretion reserved by the Board unto itself to exclude any person from the purview of Board order dated 6.7.2005 on the premise that he is no longer an outstanding sports person as such. 8. In my view, there is no justification for excluding the petitioner from the benefit of the Board order dated 6.7.2005 in the absence of any express exclusion from the purview of the said Board order. I am of the view that the petitioner's exclusion therefore, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. W.P.(C).30979/2007 8 9. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Ext.P4 is set aside. First respondent is directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in the post of Junior Assistant/Cashier in accordance with the Board order dated 6.7.2005. First respondent shall pass consequential orders in this regard within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs W.P.(C).30979/2007 9