IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 RP.No. 902 of 2008(M) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.33726/2005 Dated 21/06/2007 AS CLARIFIED IN I.A. NO.15546/07 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)//:Third Party: ------------------------------------- ANIL KUMAR. B.S., ASST. ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), K.S.E.B. L.P.E.D., KARIMANAL, THATTEKANNI P.O., IDUKKI - 685602. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENT(S)//: ------------------------ 1. MOHAMMED RAFI, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), GENERATION SUB DIVISION, THENMALA. 2. SAJU.R.L., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), GENERATION SUB DIVISION, THENMALA. 3. S.SREEKUMAR, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), GENERATION SUB DIVISION, THENMALA. 4. SUDHAKARAN THAMPI, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), GENERATION SUB DIVISION, CHITIRAPURAM P.O., IDUKKI. 5. AJAYAKUMAR.V.P., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), SMALL HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT, PEPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 6. ANIL.S., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) GENERATION SUB DIVISION, MOOZHIYAR. 7. K.PAREVEEN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), KOZHIKODE DIESEL POWER PROJECT, NALLALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE. - 2- R.P.NO.902/08 8. C.U.PAPPACHAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), KOZHIKODE DIESEL POWER PROJECT, NALLALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE. 9. AJITH.T., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL ERECTION DIVISION, KAKKAYAM. 10. SWOPANA.P.M., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), KOZHIKODE DIESEL POWER PROJECT, NALLALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE. 11. ASA SUKUMARAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), KOZHIKODE DIESEL POWER PROJECT, NALLALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE. 12. A.P.KAMARIYA, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), KOZHIKODE DIESEL POWER PROJECT, NALLALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE. 13. SARVADHARMANAN.M.K., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), KOZHIKODE DIESEL POWER PROJECT, NALLALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE. 14. AJAYA KUMAR VINCENT, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), KOZHIKODE DIESEL POWER PROJECT, NALLALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE.. 15. SUPRIYA.P.V., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), KOZHIKODE DIESEL POWER PROJECT, NALLALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE. 16. SUDHEER M.V., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), GENERATION DIVISION, PERINGALKUTHU. 17. RENJITH ANTO, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), GENERATION DIVISION, PERINGALKUTHU. 18. JAYADEVAN.O.S., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), GENERATION DIVISION, PERINGALKUTHU. 19. SHANY VARGHESE, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), GENERATION SUB DIVISION, MOOLAMATTOM P.O., IDUKKI. 20. SHIMLA.K., ASSISTANT ENGINEER(ELECTRICAL GENERATION SUB DIVISION, MOOLAMATTOM P.O., IDUKKI. 21. RAHITYANATHU BEEVI.A, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, GENERATION DIVISION,MOOLAMATTOM P.O., IDUKKI. 22. JAYASREE.B.K., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), GENERATION SUB DIVISION,MOOLAMATTOM P.O., IDUKKI. - 3 - R.P.NO.902/08 23. S.BINDU, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) GENERATION SUB DIVISION,MOOLAMATTOM P.O., IDUKKI. 24. LISSY.K.V., ASSISTANT ENGINEER(ELECTRICAL), GENERATION SUB DIVISION, (SHIFT), MOOLAMATTOM P.O., IDUKKI. 25. AGENES GEORGE, ASSISTANT ENGINEER(ELECTRICAL), GENERATION SUB DIVISION,MOOLAMATTOM P.O., IDUKKI. 26. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 27. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR R1 TO 25 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI. ASHOK M. CHERIAN, FOR R26 & 27 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2009, ALONG WITH RP NO. 242 OF 2008, WPC NO. 31952 OF 2008 WPC NO. 35549 OF 2008 AND RP NO. 1099 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ. ------------------------------------ R.P.Nos.902/08, 242/08, 1099/08, WP(C) Nos.31952/08 and 35549/08 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 17th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The review petitioners are not parties to Annexure I judgment or Annexure II order. Feeling aggrieved by the directions contained therein, these review petitions are filed. R.P.No.902/2008: 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the review petition are the following: Ten per cent of vacancies in the cadre of Assistant Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board,(for short, referred to as "the Board") were reserved to be filled up from among the engineering graduates under the Board's service on the basis of their length of service after acquisition of the qualification. They should be approved probationers also. By Ext.P2, applications for appointment to the 10% quota, from among engineering graduates working R.P.NO.902/08 & Connected cases - 2 - under the Board in posts below the post of Assistant Engineer were invited. The Board published a list of 37 persons eligible for appointment on 2.6.2002. It was modified by including one more candidate in that list, by publishing a fresh list on 10.6.2002. In the meantime,the Board decided to entrust the appointment under the above-said 10% quota earmarked for its employees, to the P.S.C.. The Government was also moved for approval of the said amendment in the method of appointment. While so, the persons mentioned in the aforesaid list moved WP(C) No.22623 of 2003. The said writ petition was allowed by learned Single Judge by judgment dated 21.6.2005. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the persons included in the list were appointed temporarily as Assistant Engineers. Learned Single Judge has directed that the persons who were so appointed on temporary basis and included in the select list were entitled for regularisation in service in accordance with law. 3. In 2004, the Board has invited applications for temporary appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer. Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.33726/05 and 33749/05, were R.P.NO.902/08 & Connected cases - 3 - candidates who have applied pursuant to the above notification and were selected and appointed as Assistant Engineers on temporary basis. The review petitioners also belong to that category of employees. The petitioners in the aforesaid two writ petitions have approached this court claiming that they may be granted the benefit of regularisation which was granted to the petitioners in WP(C) No.22623/03. Those writ petitions were clubbed along with W.A. No.2564 of 2004, which was filed by the Board against the judgment in WP(C) No.22623/03. So, the writ appeal and the two writ petitions were heard together and were disposed of by Annexure I judgment. The Writ Appeal filed by the Board was dismissed and the Division Bench ordered that the aforesaid two writ petitions are allowed. Later, the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.33726/05 filed I.A. No.15546/07 which was disposed of by Annexure II order declaring that the petitioners therein are entitled to regularisation in the post of Assistant Engineer with retrospective effect from the respective dates of occurrence of vacancies with all consequential benefits. R.P.NO.902/08 & Connected cases - 4 - 4. The review petitioners say that they are also similarly placed like the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.33726/05 and 33749/05, who are contesting respondents in these review petitions. As a result of the judgment – Annexure I and the order-Annexure II, the persons who approached this court alone are going to be regularised. Further, the review petitioners and the contesting respondents are all selected for temporary appointments. If the contesting respondents are regularised, the review petitioners are also entitled for regularisation. Since they were not parties to Annexure I and Annexure II, they have moved this review petition after seeking leave of the court. 5. We heard Sri.K.P.Satheesan, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner in R.P. No.902 of 2008 and also the learned counsel appearing in the connected review petitions. We also heard learned Standing Counsel for the K.S.E.Board Sri.Ashok M.Cherian and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents in the review petitions Sri.Pirappancode V.S.Sudhir. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents raised a preliminary objection that R.P.NO.902/08 & Connected cases - 5 - one writ appeal and two writ petitions were disposed of by one common judgment and therefore, there should be a review petition against the judgment in the Writ Appeal also. We notice that the review petitioners are not aggrieved by the judgment in the Writ Appeal. They are only aggrieved by the judgment in W.P.(C) Nos.33726/05 and 33749/05. We notice that in both these writ petitions there are review petitions. Therefore, the technical contention raised by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents cannot be accepted. 6. Since the review petitioners and the contesting respondents were selected pursuant to a notification calling for applications for temporary appointment, they are not entitled to regularisation. The direction to regularise them is vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of record. Since the application was invited for temporary appointment, many of the qualified persons may not have applied. Therefore, the direction to regularise the appointment of contesting respondents in the review petition, who are petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.33726/05 and 33749/05 is vacated. The decision of the Board to leave the recruitment R.P.NO.902/08 & Connected cases - 6 - against 10% quota of in-service candidates to P.S.C. was approved by the Government only by order dated 1.2.2005. Since the said order of approval has only prospective operation, the vacancies which arose between the 2002 selection and 31.1.2005 will have to be filled up in accordance with the Rules then in force. The Board shall undertake the exercise to fill up those vacancies in accordance with law, in the light of the Rules then in force, within four months from the date of production of copy of judgment, by inviting fresh applications pointing out that the appointment is to be made on regular basis. Till such appointments are made, the review petitioners and the contesting respondents may be retained in the posts held by them, i.e. in the post of Assistant Engineer, on temporary basis, provided their services are required by the Board. In other words, by virtue of this order in this review petition, they need not be reverted for the present. The R.P.No.902 of 2008 is allowed as above. R.P.Nos.242/08 and 1099/2008: The judgment in Review Petition No.902/2008 will R.P.NO.902/08 & Connected cases - 7 - govern these review petitions also . They are accordingly disposed of. W.P.(C) No.35549/2005: Sri.Ashok M.Cherian, Standing Counsel for K.S.E.B. takes notice for respondents 1 and 2. Sri.Pirappancode V.S.Sudhir takes notice for respondent No.3. The judgment in R.P.No.902/2008 will govern this writ petition and it is accordingly disposed of. W.P.(C)No.31952/08: Admit. Sri.Ashok M.Cherian, Standing Counsel for K.S.E.B. takes notice for respondents 1 and 2. Sri.Pirappancode V.S.Sudhir takes notice for respondent No.3. The judgment in R.P.No.902/2008 will govern this writ petition and it is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. DK. (True copy)