IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2010 / 21ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 32584 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. UNNI KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI.M.S, MADAVANA ILLAM, KURICHI.P.O, WORKING AS CASHIER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, THRIKKODITHANAM, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM. 2. AJITH.R.V, S/O. P. REGHUNATHAN, SAUPARNIKA, EDAYAKKODU, PRAVACHAMBALAM, NEMAM.P.O, WORKING AS CASHIER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, NEMAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. JAWAHAR.A.K, KARAMEL VEEDU, AAVANISWARAM R.S. P.O, KUNNIKODU, KOLLAM, WORKING AS CASHIER, SYSTEM SUPERVISOR, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PUNALOOR. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.SAJAN SRI.L.ALOYSIUS THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHUTHI BHAVAN, K.S.E. BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), GENERAL VAIDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, O/O. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB ELECTRICAL DIVISION, CHANGANASSERY. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, O/O. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB ELECTRICL DIVISION, NEYYATINKARA. 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PUNALOOR BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R 1 TO 5 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R1 TO 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.32584 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners while working as Lineman Grade I were provisionally promoted as Cashiers against 20% quota earmarked for lower grade employees, subject to their passing eligibility test conducted by the PSC. The petitioners passed the test conducted by the PSC on 2.2.2008. Subsequently, petitioners were appointed as Cashiers. Their claim is that they having passed the examination held on 2.2.2008, extending the benefit of Rule 28(bbb) b of KS & SSR, their appointment should be made effective from 3.2.2008. The said claim was rejected by the second respondent by Ext.P15 order. The reasons stated in Ext.P15 is that the rule relied on by the petitioners is applicable only for regular promotion and has no relevance in their case, for the reason that they were appointed as Cashier. 2. Rule 28, by its own forms, indicate that the same has relevance only in the matter of promotion. Ext.P1 is the special rules which show that 20% reservation is for W.P.(C) No.32584 of 2009 2 “appointment” from among lower grade employees. Therefore, the petitioners occupy the post by way of appointment and not by transfer. If that be so, the stand taken in Ext.P15 that Rule 28(bbb) b of KS & SSR has no relevance has to be upheld. Therefore, the writ petition is only to be dismissed. I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE. nj.