IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 34357 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. SOSAMMA KURUVILLA, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE K.S.E.BOARD, PALAKKAD 2. R.RAVICHANDAR EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E BOARD S.L.D.C. KALAMASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT , POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY K.S.E BOARD VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CHIEF ENIGNEER (HRM) K.S.E BOARD VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. P.M.THOMAS, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER COMMUNICATION DIVISION, K.S.E.BOARD, KANJIRODE, KANNUR. 6. V.BRIJULAL, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSE BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, THODUPUZHA. 7. R.SUKU, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER K.S.E. BOARD, ON DEPUTATION, AS MANAGING DIRECTOR UNILECK, PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY FOR R5 SMT.N.SANTHA FOR R5 SRI.S.A.ANAND FOR R5 SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R2-4 SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R2 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 36226 OF 2009 AND 671 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.34357/09 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 1.8.02 ISSUED BY THE KSE BOARD. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 27.11.04 ISSUED BY THE KSE BOARD. EXT.P2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SENIORITY LIST PUBLISHED AS PER EXT.P2. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE/ORDER DT 11.6.09 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.25.8.2009 IN WPC NO.17937/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 17.7.09 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 23.11.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 19.10.2009 IN WPC NO.29510/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 30.11.2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P8(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SENIORITY LIST PUBLSIHED AS PER EXT.P8(a) EXTS.OF R4 EXT.R4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 30.11.2009. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOs. 34357, 36226 OF 2009 & 671 OF 2010 ========================== Dated this the 26th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Issues raised in these writ petitions are common and therefore, these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. Exhibits referred to are those produced in WP(C) No. 36226/09. 2. The challenge in the writ petitions is against the seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical). According to the petitioners, seniority has been wrongly assigned to graduate Assistant Engineers (Electrical), who got promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical). Ext.P19 is the seniority list. 3. It is now brought to my notice that the same controversy was raised with respect to the seniority list of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) published by the Board, and that, by Ext.P16 judgment, a learned Single Judge of this Court interfered with the seniority list and directed that the seniority list shall be suitably modified. Against the said judgment, WA No.1913/09 was filed by the Electricity Board, which was disposed WPC NOs. 34357, 36226 OF 2009 & 671 OF 2010 :2 : of by Ext.P22 judgment. In Ext.P22, taking note of the subsequent developments resulting in the publication of yet another seniority list of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), Division Bench issued the following directions: 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 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. Since, according to the petitioners, the invalidity found by the learned Single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench, is present in Ext.P19 seniority list also, they pray that these writ petitions may also be disposed of enabling the petitioners to represent their objections against Ext.P19 seniority list in the light of the findings in Exts.P16 and P22 judgments referred to above. 4. Having regard to the contentions raised as above, I feel WPC NOs. 34357, 36226 OF 2009 & 671 OF 2010 :3 : the petitioners are justified in their demand, for the reason that, if they have an objection that Ext.P19 seniority list is vitiated for the reasons found in Exts.P16 and P22, they are entitled to point out their objections. 5. In view of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to bring their objections against Ext.P19 seniority list to the 4th respondent, the Chief Engineer, in which event, the 4th respondent will consider the objections with notice to affected parties and appropriate further orders in the matter shall be passed duly adverting to Exts.P16 and P22 also. This exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months. Representations as above, shall be submitted within 2 weeks from today. Needles to say that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the controversy and the contentions of both sides are left open. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp