IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 1913 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.21527/2009 Dated 07/10/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, (ELECTRICAL GENERAL),K.S.E.BOARD, VYDHUDHI BHAVAN,TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 ---------------------------- 1. N.VENUGOPAL, ASST.ENGINEER,ERECTION DIVISION, K.S.E.BOARD,SEETHATHODE,PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. K.SANAL KUMAR, ASST.ENGINEER,CARRIER SECTION, K.S.E.BOARD,KUNDARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. K.M.MAMMU, ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, VALAYAM CHIRANGARA P.O.,PERUMBAVUR. 4. K.P.SASI, ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, THENGANA,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. W.A. NO.1913/2009 *ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED. 5. SHAJKUMAR G., AGED 39, S/O. GOPINATHAN NAIR, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, CORPORATE PLANNING, VYDUTHY BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT DEEPAM, KARUKKANNI, VARKALA, PIN. 695 141. *ADDL. R5 IS RESPONDENT IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 22.1.2010 IN IA. NO.68/2010. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. MR.S.RAMESH BABU R3 BY ADV.MR.P.ALI R4 BY ADV. MR.T.A.SHAJI ADDL. R5 BY ADV. MR.BIJU MARTIN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.1913 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 28th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents 1 and 2 in the Writ Petition are the appellants. They are respectively the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) and its Chief Engineer. The respondents 1 and 2 were the writ petitioners. They were directly recruited to the service of the Electricity Board as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) based on the advice of the PSC dated 26.12.1989. The qualifications and method of appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) are governed by the regulations framed by the KSEB. The appointments are to be made in the ratio of 1:4:3:2 between degree holders, who are employees of the Board, degree holders from the open market through the PSC, by promotion of diploma holders and by promotion of certificate holders. The dispute regarding inter se ranking of the aforementioned four streams in the rank list of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) has been settled by the W.A. No.1913/2009 - 2 - decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.216/1993, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P4. In purported implementation of the said judgment, the Board published Ext.P7 proceedings and Ext.P7(a) seniority list annexed to Ext.P7. The respondents 1 and 2 found that in the seniority list, seniority to persons from the aforementioned four groups were properly assigned upto Rank No.1652. Thereafter, the persons coming under the 10% quota reserved for graduates in the Board service have been listed en block. As a result of the said illegality, the ranks assigned to the writ petitioners were much lower, when compared to the ranking entitled to them. Raising the above grievance, the Writ Petition was filed. The Board filed a counter affidavit resisting the prayers in the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, upheld the contentions of the writ petitioners and directed to recast the seniority list strictly in accordance with the aforementioned ratio from Serial No.1653 onwards. Feeling aggrieved by the said direction, this Writ Appeal is preferred. W.A. No.1913/2009 - 3 - 2. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. We notice that in the Writ Petition two persons were impleaded in a representative capacity and paper publication was also given. The result was that the decision of the learned Single Judge will affect all the Board employees concerned. Challenging the above decision, the Electricity Board and its Chief Engineer have preferred this Writ Appeal. According to them, the Board has placed all the degree holders, who are employees of the Board, together in view of a decision of the Apex Court, wherein it was directed that a diploma holder acquiring degree should be put at the bottom of the list of the degree holders. We think the said point decided by the Apex Court has no bearing in this case. In the 10% quota set apart for degree holders among the Board employees, there may be certain claimants, who are originally diploma holders but later acquired degree. In the case of such persons, they should be put at the bottom of the list of the internal candidates having degree. That direction of the Apex Court has no bearing whatsoever on the dispute raised in the Writ Petition by the writ petitioners, who are respondents 1 and 2 herein. A plain perusal of the list would show that up to W.A. No.1913/2009 - 4 - Serial No.1653, the seniority list was prepared properly and thereafter it was done illegally. The learned Single Judge has rightly interfered with the seniority list. But, the learned standing counsel brought to our notice that Ext.P7(a) seniority list has been revised on more than one occasion. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not have interfered with Ext.P7(a). But, we notice that the preparation or publication of subsequent seniority list was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, on that ground the judgment under appeal cannot be faulted. 3. But, having regard to the said subsequent developments, we think certain further directions are called for. We affirm the principles laid by the learned Single Judge in the preparation of the seniority list, that is, we uphold the view taken by the learned Judge that the degree holders, who are employees of the Board, cannot be put together from Serial No.1653 as was done in Ext.P7(a). If in the list, which is presently in force and operated, the very same illegality is repeated, the respondents 1 and 2 can bring the same to the notice of the 2nd appellant. In that event, the 2nd appellant W.A. No.1913/2009 - 5 - shall make appropriate modifications in the list, in accordance with the direction in the judgment under appeal. If such representations are filed, along with a copy of this judgment, within one month from today, appropriate further orders shall be made by the 2nd appellant within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment along with the representation. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE) ps