IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36741 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.DIVAKARAN, RETD.DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTANT, K.S.E.BOARD, KOYAKKEEL HOUSE, ADUTHILA, PAYANGADI.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. V.P.ANIYAN, DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTANT, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, K.S.E.BOARD, THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. V.GEETHA, DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTANT, BUILDINGS AND STORES DIVISION, K.S.E.BOARD, ANGAMALI. 4. S.SURESH KUMAR, DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTANT, CIVIL DIVISION, K.S.E.BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), K.S.E.BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SRI.BALACHANDRAN PILLAI, ASST.ACCOUNTS OFFICER, K.S.E.BOARD, REGIONAL AUDIT OFFICE, MANJERI. 5. SYAMALA.P.P., ASST.ACCOUNTS OFFICER, K.S.E.BOARD, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (DISTRIBUTION-NORTH), KOZHIKODE. 6. MANJULA.M.V, ASST.ACCOUNTS OFFICER, K.S.E.BOARD, REGIONAL AUDIT OFFICE, KANNUR. 7. JAGADANAND.P.V, ASST.ACCOUNTS OFFICER, K.S.E.BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KANNUR. 8. AUGUSTINE.M, ASST.ACCOUNTS OFFICER, K.S.E.BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (RURAL). 9. SURESH.M, ASST.ACCOUNTS OFFICER, K.S.E.BOARD, REGIONAL AUDIT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. 10. PRADEEP KUMAR, ASST.ACCOUNTS OFFICER, K.S.E.BOARD, REGIONAL AUDIT OFFICE, KASARAGODE. 11. BEENA.L, ASST.ACCOUNTS OFFICER, K.S.E.BOARD, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (DISTRIBUTION-SOUTH), POWER HOUSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 12. SREEKANTAN NAIR.P, ASST.ACCOUNTS OFFICER K.S.E.BOARD, OFFICE OF THE C.I.A, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 13. CHITRALEKHA.I, ASST.ACCOUNTS OFFICER, K.S.E.BOARD, REGIONAL AUDIT OFFICE, POWER HOUSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 14. SANKARARAMAKRISHNAN.M, ASST.ACCOUNTS OFFICER, K.S.E.BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, THIRUR. 15. SANTHOSH KUMAR.K, ASST.ACCOUNTS OFFICER, K.S.E.BOARD, REGIONAL AUDIT OFFICE, MANJERI. 16. SASIKUMAR.S, ASST.ACCOUNTS OFFICER, K.S.E.BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, VADAKARA. 17. VENUGOPALAN.P., ASST.ACCOUNTS OFFICER, K.S.E.BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, SREEKANTAPURAM. 18. HARIKUMAR.G, ASST.ACCOUNTS OFFICER, K.S.E.BOARD, REGIONAL AUDIT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 19. PRASANNAKUMAR.G, ASST.ACCOUNTS OFFICER, K.S.E.BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE. SC SRI. K.S. ANIL BY GOVT. PLADER SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.36741 OF 2009 (k) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board. They were all promoted as Senior Assistants. There are two channels for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, viz., to the post of Senior Superintendent and Divisional Accountant Grd.II. By Ext.P3 and P4 petitioners and respondents 4 to 8 were promoted to the post of Senior Superintendents and respondents 4 to 8 are stated to be juniors to them. 2. Thereafter, petitioners claimed promotion to the post of Divisional Accountant Grd-II in the other channel of promotion. That claim was rejected by the Board. The order of rejection was challenged before this court in WP(c).Nos. 5629/06 and 2223/06 and the petitioners claimed promotion to the post of Divisional Accountant Grd.II with effect from 2003. By Ext.P5 judgment, the writ petitions were allowed by this court and accordingly respondent issued Ext.P6 order dated 7.4.2008 promoting the petitioners to the post of Divisional Accountant Grd-II with effect from 7.4.2008. Such WPC.No.36741 /09 :2 : appointment was in the scale of pay of Rs.13215-20655. In Ext.P6 certain conditions were also imposed and these conditions were accepted by the petitioners and they assumed charge in the post of Divisional Accountant Grd.-II. 3. According to the petitioners there are no further possibility of promotion and that the scale of pay now earn is less than what their juniors, who continued as Senior Superintendents are now getting in the cadre of Assistant Accounts Officer, to which post they are subsequently promoted. It is stated that these juniors are now getting pay in the scale of 17015-24215 and are having better avenues of promotion. In the above situation, first petitioner submitted Ext.P10 representation to the 3rd respondent requesting for reversion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer from which category he was promoted to the post of Divisional Accountant Grd.II. The request made by the first petitioner was rejected by Ext.P11. Petitioners 2 to 4 also made request for reversion to the post of Senior Superintendent by submitting Exts.P13 to P16 representations. 4. These representations were not considered and they approached this court by filing WP(c).No. 15690/09. That writ petition was disposed of by directing the Board to consider the WPC.No.36741 /09 :3 : representations. Accordingly the writ petitions were considered and Ext.P19 order has been issued rejecting the representations. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. Counsel for the petitioners raised two contentions. One is that the Chief Engineer who issued Ext.P6 had no authority to incorporate the conditions mentioned therein. It is also contended that so long as the petitioners retained lien in the post of Senior Assistant they were always entitled to seek reversion. 6. In so far as the invalidity of the conditions in Ext.P6 is concerned, counsel submits that the power of appointment is available to the Board which was delegated to the Chairman and further delegated to the Chief Engineer. It is stated that within the scope of his delegated authority Chief Engineer could not have imposed the conditions. In my view, this contention is devoid of merit. First of all, even if the petitioners had such a contention, they need not have availed of the benefit of Ext.P6. On the other hand, without any protest they accepted Ext.P6 with the conditions prescribed for the promotion and it is almost after 2 years that these contentions are raised. Therefore, by conduct they have acquiesced to the conditions and cannot now challenge. Even otherwise the Chief Engineer is the appointing authority and there WPC.No.36741 /09 :4 : is no necessity to make specifications in the order of delegation as is now sought to be canvassed before this court. Therefore, this contention of the petitioner is only to be rejected. The other contention regarding lien to the post of Senior Assistant is concerned, facts as stated above and the contents of Ext.P19 shows that it was only on account of the compulsion by virtue of the judgment secured by the petitioners from this court that they were promoted and posted in the category of Divisional Accountant. Therefore, at this stage this contention cannot be entertained. Evidently the situation is one created by the petitioners themselves for which the Board cannot be faulted. I do not find merit in the writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.36741 /09 :5 :