IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 26801 of 2008(N) PETITIONERS:- 1. SABU K.S., AGED 38, S/O.K.V.SUDHAKARAN, OVERSEER (C), DAM SAFETY SECTION, PORINGALKUTHU, THRISSUR DT. 2. THOMAS K.A., S/O. K.S.AUGUSTINE, OVERSEER, AZHUTHA SUB DIVISION, PEERUMADE. 3. LEELA P.P., AGED 45, W/O.K.P.CHANDRAN, OVERSEER, AHEP DAM SUB DIVISION, PORINGALKUTHU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. RAJASREE R., AGED 34, W/O.MANOJ KUMAR, OVERSEER (C) DAM SAFETY SECTION, PORINGALKUTHU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. SANDA M.S., AGED 45, OVERSEER (C) AHEP DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KANNANKUZHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. E.B.SHIVANANDAN MS. RENY BHASKER RESPONDENTS:- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT) OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, (HRM), VAIDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. MR. K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R1 & R2 SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO. 26801/2008 : 2 : APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST OF OVERSEER (c) DT. 15.11.2007. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF INFORMATION ISSUED BY THE K.S.E.B EVIDENCING THE CADRE STRENGTH OF SUB ENGINEER (c) DT. 25.01.2008. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST OF SUB ENGINEER (c) DT. 20.10.2007 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.26801 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of September, 2009 -------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T The petitioners are Overseers (Civil) working under the 1st respondent Board, appointed in 2001. According to the petitioners, the post to which they can aspire for promotion is Sub Engineer (Civil), which is to be filled up in the ratio of 60:30:10. 60% is to be filled up by promotion from among Overseers(Civil), 30% by direct recruitment and 10% by internal recruitment through PSC respectively. Despite the non-availability of sufficient vacancies for direct recruitment, the Board appointed 325 Sub Engineers, who have been included at Serial No.818 to 1148 of Ext.P3 provisional seniority list of Sub Engineers. It is stated that since such appointments have been made in violation of the quota fixed, the promotional avenues of the petitioners have been substantially affected, and therefore, they have filed this writ petition praying to declare that the appointments made to the posts of Sub Engineer (Civil) in violation of the ratio is illegal, and to direct the WP(C) No.26801/2008 -2- respondents to grant promotion to the petitioners under the quota earmarked. There is a further prayer requiring the respondents not to violate the ratio of appointment for each category. 2. In so far as the first prayer to invalidate the appointments made to the post of Sub Engineer is concerned, the petitioner has not impleaded any of the Sub Engineers, who have been allegedly illegally appointed by the Board in 2002. In such a situation, this Court will not be justified in granting the prayer sought, or any order affecting their career in any manner. 3. In so far as the 2nd prayer to direct the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioners to the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) is concerned, the Board has no dispute that the post is to be filled up in the ratio as indicated above. If that be so, the Board is bound to consider the case of Overseers (Civil) for promotion consistent with the ratio fixed. 4. The third prayer is to direct the Board not to violate the ratio of appointment fixed in each category. If a ratio has been fixed, it need not be stated that the Board has any freedom to violate it. However, any such anticipatory relief cannot be granted. WP(C) No.26801/2008 -3- If any violation takes place, it is up to the aggrieved person to seek redressal of his grievance, and to remedy the situation at the appropriate time. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg