IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 8508 of 2007(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.SUMESH, LINEMAN GRADE-I, 66 KV SUBSTATION, K.S.E.B., CHOVVA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT: 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., POWER DEPT., GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.14042/08 DTD.4.11.08) GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 8508/07. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE NATIONAL TRADE CERTIFICATE. P2. COPY OF THE NATIONAL APPRENTICESHIP CERTIFICATE. P3. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN UPSRTC CORPN. V. U.P.PARIVALIAN NSB SANTH. P4. COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DTD.2.12.03. P5. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.3.11.04. P6. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.15.1.05. P7. COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD.24.2.05. P8. COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD.11.3.05. P9. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.24.4.06. P10. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.19.2.07. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.8508 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an I.T.I. holder in the trade of Electrician. The petitioner was a trained apprentice under the Kerala State Electricity Board. The petitioner submits that in Ext.P3 judgment, in a case filed by similarly placed apprentices in other instrumentalities of the State, the Supreme Court has directed that employers shall give preference to apprentices while making appointments. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation before the Board seeking action to implement Ext.P3 judgment by earmarking a quota of vacancies for trained apprentices. The same was rejected by Ext.P10 order of the Secretary of the Board. According to the petitioner, in view of the said judgment, the Board ought to have amended the recruitment rules to make provision for reservation of posts for trained apprentices in accordance with Ext.P3 judgment. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following relief: “A writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the first respondent to take immediate steps to implement the direction in para 12 of the Ext.P3 judgment by amending the special rules for recruitment to the post of Sub Engineer (Ele.) making provision for preferential claim either in the service quota or open market quota fro (sic) apprentices trained under the KSEB with the concurrence of the third respondent Kerala Public Service Commission.” 2. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit w.p.c.8508/07 2 controverting the contentions in the writ petition. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Essentially the claim of the petitioner is for a direction to the Kerala State Electricity Board to make amendments to the recruitment rules by making provisions for preference/reservation to various posts in the Board for trained apprentices. I have gone through Ext.P3 judgment of the Supreme Court. It does not contain any direction to anybody to the effect that they should amend the recruitment rules making provision for reservation/preference to trained apprentices and it only directs that other things being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over another direct recruit. Admittedly, the selections for appointment to various posts in the Electricity Board are left to the Public Service Commission. It is for the Public Service Commission to select candidates in accordance with the recruitment rules. Insofar as in Ext.P3 judgment there is no direction to amend the recruit rules, I do not think that the petitioner's contention can be countenanced. Even otherwise, amendment of the rules is a legislative function and this Court cannot issue a mandamus to legislate. As and when the Public Service Commission invites applications for selection for appointments, the petitioner has to respond, undergo selection process and seek employment in accordance with the rank list prepared. The petitioner has no case that despite the PSC inviting applications as per Ext.P4 and the petitioner w.p.c.8508/07 3 submitting application, his case has not been duly considered. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge