IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 33019 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAMESH A., AGED 43 YEARS,S/O.RAMAN NAIR, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RELAY SUB DIVISION,KSEB, MADAKKATHARA,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.ANILKUMAR SMT.R.RANJINI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., C-4,DISTRICT CENTRE,SAKET,NEW DELHI-110 017, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER/HRM, IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., C-4,DISTRICT CENTRE,SAKET, NEW DELHI-110 017. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ASG SRI. T.P.M. IBRAHIM KHAN SC FOR KSEB SRI. K.S. ANIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.33019 OF 2009 () -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an Assistant Executive Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board. 2. The first respondent invited applications for appointment to the post of Joint General Manager/Electrical. Petitioner applied for the post. He was selected and was appointed by Ext.P1 order dated 27.12.2007. Ext.P1 provided that the petitioner could not have joined without the prior permission of the Electricity Board. It is stated that on receipt of Ext.P1, as against jointing the service of the first respondent on a regular basis as its employee, petitioner sought permission to join the company on deputation basis. When that request was received, first respondent issued Ext.P2 informing that although petitioner was appointed against an open market recruitment, they have no objection to consider his request for joining on deputation initially for a period of 2 years extendable for a further period of one year. WPC.No.33019 /09 :2 : 3. Subsequently, referring to the letter dated 11.6.2008, of the petitioner, first respondent issued Ext.P3 letter, posting the petitioner at Cochin and informing that if he does not join either on deputation or recruitment before by 31.7.2008, the offer may be cancelled. Thereafter, on 21.7.2008, the first respondent issued Ext.P4, informing the petitioner that there has not been any response from him to Ext.P3 and that if he do not join before 31.7.2008, the offer of recruitment on deputation will be treated as cancelled. 4. Petitioner states that in pursuance to Exts.P2 and P3, he got Ext.P5 issued by the 3rd respondent, informing of its non- objection for the petitioner's deputation for one year initially. Thereafter, the petitioner made Ext.P6 request to the first respondent to issue necessary agreement to the Secretary of the Board, in order to enable him to join under the first respondent. Thereupon he received Ext.P7, informing that it has been decided by the competent authority that there is no requirement for Joint General Manager/Electrical at Cochin and hence the request of the petitioner to join on deputation is not being agreed to. Ext.P7 is a communication issued by the first respondent to the 3rd respondent. Apparently on coming to know of Ext.P7 petitioner WPC.No.33019 /09 :3 : submitted Ext.P8 representation to permit him to join as Joint General Manager. 5. In reply to Ext.P8, he received Ext.P9 informing that the petitioner was given an offer through open market and that if he intends to join the company the offer is valid till 26.11.2008 and that company will be posting the petitioner subject to its requirements. In reply, petitioner gave Ext.P10, reiterating his willingness to join the service of the first respondent either on deputation or on leave without allowance basis. That was rejected by Ext.P11 dated 5.1.2009. It is stated that thereafter again petitioner submitted Ext.P12 to which no reply has been received. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed praying to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to join as Joint General Manager/Electrical on deputation on leave without allowance basis. 6. As already seen petitioner's appointment was on recruitment into regular service. It was thereafter that he sought permission to join on deputation. Initially, though he was permitted to join on deputation, that offer seems to have been withdrawn by the first respondent. The petitioner having been recruited on regular basis, it is always open to the first respondent to insist that the petitioner should join as a regular employee. WPC.No.33019 /09 :4 : 7. In this case, evidently the petitioner is unwilling to join as a regular employee and if so I do not see any arbitrariness on the part of the first respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings. Counsel for the petitioner contends that once a decision was taken by the Ist respondent to permit the petitioner to join on deputation, it is not open to the respondents to review its decision. I cannot accept this submission. Even in Ext.P2, all that was stated by the Ist respondent was that it has no objection to consider his request which cannot be said as a agreement or its part. In any case the offer of the first respondent permitting the petitioner to join on deputation does not give rise to a case of promissory estoppel, If so, it is always open to the first respondent to review its decision depending on the requirements. In addition to all this it is also seen that the offer made to the petitioner was recalled by Ext.P11 order dated 5.1.2009. This writ petition is filed more than 10 months after the issuance of the order. Therefore on the ground of delay also I cannot entertain this writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.33019 /09 :5 :