IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 34010 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. CHANDRASEKHARAN.K.R., OVERSEER (ELECTRCAL), ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.BOARD, VELLOORKUNNAM, MOOVTTUPUZHA DIVISION. 2. UDAYAKUMAR.P.K., OVERSEER (ELECTRICAL) ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.BOARD, CHERAI, NORTH PARAVOOR DIVISION. 3. GOPALAKRISHNAN.V.P., OVERSEER(ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.BOARD, KAIPAMANGALAM, KODUNGALLOOR DIVISION. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M.) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, BYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.S. ANIL, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 34010 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 19th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioners are Overseers (Electrical) working in the Kerala State Electricity Board, who have the educational qualification of Diploma in Electrical Engineering. They are now aggrieved by Ext. P3 amendment to the Rules, wherein for promotion to the post of Sub Engineer (Electrical), five years' experience has been prescribed for qualified overseers. According to the petitioners, this prescription of qualification is against Ext. P1 Rule. The petitioners submit that among Overseers, there are Diploma holders and ITI holders. Diploma Holders and ITI holders cannot be equated while fixing qualification for further promotion, which, if done, would amount unequals being treated as equals, is their contention in this writ petition. Taking these contentions, the petitioners have filed Exts.P5 to P7 representations before the 1st respondent. The petitioners seek a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P5 to P7 expeditiously. 2. The learned standing counsel points out that Exts.P5 to P7 are filed before the Chief Engineer and not before the 1st respondent. I am of opinion that the 1st respondent can be directed to consider the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 3rd respondent shall place Exts.P5 to P7 representations before the 1st respondent immediately and the 1st respondent shall consider and pass orders on the same after affording an opportunity of being heard to all concerned, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ (True copy) P.S to Judge.