IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 12176 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BINI K.P. KOLLAMARIKKANDI HOUSE, CHUNAGAMVELI PO,ALUVA ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VYDHUTHI BHAVAN,PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SC FOR R3 SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD O N 23/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the order dated 28.1.2004 by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P2. True copy of the representation dated 31.3.2008. // true copy// P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.12176 OF 2008 (Y) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Public Service Commission invited applications for the post of Sub Engineer under the respondent Board. Petitioner was a candidate who was included in the ranked list which was finally prepared. Pursuant to the orders passed by this court in O.P.No.1796/02, vacancies were reported to the PSC and the PSC advised 17 candidates for appointment as Sub Engineers. Petitioner was one among them. The Board issued Ext.P1 order of appointment to these 17 candidates including the petitioner. In Ext.P1 it is also stated that they will be appointed notionally with effect from 18.12.2003 and on acceptance of the appointment order they will also stand retrenched for want of vacancies. Accordingly, the petitioner accepted appointment and was also retrenched. In this writ petition, petitioner submits that being a retrenched employee, she is entitled to be reinstated, and that the Board is not reinstating her despite the existence of several vacancies in the cadre of Sub Engineer. 2. The case of the Board as reflected in the counter affidavit is that, in terms of the recruitment rules 30% of the vacancies WPC.No.12176/08 :2 : arose are to be filled up by direct recruitment, from open market. It is stated that the cadre strength of Sub Engineer is 471 and that at present more than 320 candidates from the open quota (directly recruited through PSC) are working in the 30% quota. It is also stated that, though 25 vacancies arose due to promotion of Sub Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineers,in view of the excess strength in the direct recruitment quota those vacancies could not be filled up from the said quota. Therefore, the case of the Board is that there is no vacancy in the direct recruitment quota to accommodate the petitioner. 3. Petitioner countered this submission by contending that once she was appointed and retrenched she is entitled to be appointed as and when a vacancy arises in spite of quota rule that is prevalent. 4. I have considered the submissions made Admittedly the petitioner was appointed in the direct recruitment quota. Filling up of the post of Sub Engineer is in the ratio of 30:60:10. Thirty percent is to be filled up by direct recruitment, 10% by recruitment of qualified in service candidates through the PSC and the remaining 60% is to be filled up by promotion. Although, as a retrenched employee like the petitioner is entitled to be WPC.No.12176/08 :3 : appointed in service, such an appointment cannot be in violation of the recruitment rules, which provides different quotas for filling up of the post. As a result of this, the petitioner cannot be adjusted against the 10% vacancies earmarked for qualified inservice candidates or against the promotion quota of 60%. Therefore, the petitioner can aspire for appointment only against the direct recruitment quota vacancy. From the counter affidavit what is seen is that as against the available 142 posts in the direct recruitment quota, more than 320 candidates are working. This factual assertion in the counter affidavit is not disputed. Therefore the petitioner can claim appointment only as and when posts are filled up in the direct recruitment quota. If so, as at present there is no post available to appoint the petitioner and consequently the petitioner cannot claim appointment at this stage. The writ petition is therefore dismissed but however this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner claiming appointment as and when vacancy arises in the direct recruitment quota. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.12176/08 :4 :