IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 62 of 2011(S) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.5374/2009 Dated 23/04/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER NO.1 ------------------------------------------------- GIBY PAUL, S/O. PAULOSE, AGED 36 YEARS, PATTARUMADATHIL HOUSE, RAJAKUMARY NORTH P.O., RAJAKUMARY, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 619. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT NO.1 ---------------------------------------------------- SRI. B.MOHANAN, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN PILLAI, AGED 52 YEARS, SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Con.Case(C).No. 62 of 2011 APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.4.2010 IN W.P.(C) No.5374/2009 ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF THE ENTRY PASS DATED 26.4.2010. ANNEXURE III: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.5.2010 TOGETHER WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE R1(a) : A TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 30.4.2010 BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) TO THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ALONG WITH PRESCRIBED PROFORMA. TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE. Kp P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- Cont. Case (C) No. 62 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The first petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5374 of 2009 has filed this contempt case alleging that the respondent herein, who is the Secretary of the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board' for short) has willfully violated the direction issued by this Court in Annexure-I order passed in I.A. No.5264 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 5374 of 2009. It is alleged that though this Court had categorically directed that 93 vacancies of Driver Grade II/Driver (HDV) should be reported to the Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission' for short) before the close of office hours on 29.4.2010, the letter of requisition was sent only on 30.4.2010, the day on which the ranked list ceased to be in force and that it was received in the office of the Commission only on 4.5.2010. It is contended that instead of reporting the vacancies in time, the letter of requisition was prepared and sent only on 30.4.2010 and thereby the respondent has willfully violated the direction issued by this Court. 2. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 11.2.2011 wherein it was stated that he took charge as the Cont. Case (C) No.62/2011 2 Secretary of the Board on deputation from the Secretariat only on 13.4.2010 and that he was unaware of the past history of the case. The respondent proceeds to state that upon receipt of information from the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Board and the interim order which was faxed to his office, which came to his notice on 28.4.2010, the matter was placed before the Board for the reason that reporting of vacancies could have been done only with the approval of the Board. He also stated that as he took charge only on 13.4.2010 he was not aware of the expiry date of the ranked list and that it was in such circumstances that the delay in reporting the vacancies occurred. He has also unconditionally apologised for the delay in reporting the vacancies. 3. I heard Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Asok M.Cheriyan, learned standing counsel appearing for the Board. The fact that the respondent took charge as Secretary of the Board only on 13.4.2010 is not disputed. The ranked list in question was published on 28.2.2007 and it was valid only till 27.2.2010. By virtue of the policy decision taken by the Commission pursuant to the unification of the age of retirement, the validity of all ranked lists was extended up to 30.4.2010. In such Cont. Case (C) No.62/2011 3 circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent who took charge as Secretary of the Board only on 13.4.2010 was in the know of the past history of the case and also of the fact that the ranked list would cease to be invalid on 30.4.2010. There was also no indication to that effect in the interim order passed by this Court. Such being the situation, it cannot be said with certainty that the respondent was motivated by extraneous considerations or that he had willfully violated the direction issued by this Court by not reporting the vacancies on 29.4.2010 or that he had deliberately delayed reporting of the vacancies. Under section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 unless it is found that the violation was wilful the respondent cannot be proceeded against. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the instant case is one which does not require to be proceeded with. I accordingly hold that no grounds have been made out to proceed against the respondent. The contempt case is accordingly closed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps Cont. Case (C) No.62/2011 4