IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 8326 of 2008(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SAJI VARGHESE, ASSISTANT ENGINEER [CIVIL] K.S.E.BOARD, CIVIL CIRCLE, PALLOM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, KARALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER [H.R.M.], KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. JAMES WILSON, ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER [CIVIL], OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER [IPDS],K.S.E.BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SHEELA JOSEPHINE, ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SENGULAM AUGMENTATION DIVISION, K.S.E.BOARD, ANACHAL P.O., IDUKKI. 6. SHERLY J.L., ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER [CC], K.S.E.BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, KOZHIKODE. 7. N.ANILKUMAR, ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.BOARD, INVESTIGATION DIVISION, PADINJARETHARA P.O., WAYANAD DIST. W.P.(C). NO.8326/2008-N: 8. E.J.JOSEPH, ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER [DESIGN CELL], K.S.E.BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, KOZHIKODE. 9. VIJAYASREE K.S., ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER[CC, K.S.E.BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB, ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, ADV. SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR, ADV. SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD, ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANDAS (EKM), ADV. SRI.P.P.JNANASEKHARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.8326/2008-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ADVICE MEMO DT. 05/02/1996 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DT. 07/07/1996 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 30/01/199 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, RESEARCH ORGANISATION, PALLOM. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12/01/2007 OF THE R.3. EXT.P.4.A: COPY OF THE LIST ATTACHED TO EXT.P.4. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 31/08/2006 IN W.P.NO. 3262/2001 OF THIS HON. COURT. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 25/10/2006 IN W.P. NO. 27805/2006 OF THIS HON. COURT. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19/02/2000 OF THE R.3. EXT.P.7.A: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PROVISIONAL GRADATION LIST OF ASST. ENGINEERS (CIVIL) AS ON 30/11/1999 PUBLISHED AS PER EXT.P.7. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 07/02/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 31/05/2008. EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE REVISED SENIORITY LIST OF ASSISTANT ENGINEERS. EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. EBC.4/GRADATION DTD. 21/06/93. EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF THE R.4. DTD. 13/07/1995. EXT.R4.C: COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF R.8. EXT.R4.D: COPY OF THE ORDER DECLARING PROBATION DTD. 27/03/1999. EXT.R4.E: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE R.8. W.P.(C). NO.8326/2008-N: EXT.R4.F: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF DIVISION BENCH DTD. 18/06/07 IN W.A. NO. 390/2007-D. EXT.R7.A: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 07/07/2008 IN W.P.(C). NO. 20219/2008. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. prv. V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.8326 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a degree holder. He was recruited as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Electricity Board, pursuant to Ext.P1 advice dated 5.2.1996. He completed his probation in the category of Assistant Engineer with effect from 14.7.1998. Satisfactory completion of probation was declared as per Ext.P3 order. There is a ratio of 50 : 50 between direct recruitment and promotion forming part of appointment of Assistant Engineer. Out of the 50%, 40% is to be filled up by direct recruitment from among Engineering Graduates and the remaining 10% from the in-service Engineering Graduates. The remaining 50%, to be filled up by promotion, is to be apportioned between diploma holders and degree holders and in the ratio of 3 : 2. Apparently, the respondents, who are Sub Engineers, are Graduates in Civil Engineering. They were appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the W.P.(C).NO.8326/08 :: 2 :: 10% quota that is available for direct recruitment. 2. There was a dispute between the Sub Engineers, who were directly recruited as Assistant Engineer in the 10% in-service quota as to whether the seniority in the post of Assistant Engineer should be reckoned on the basis of their inter se seniority in the post of Sub Engineer or it should be done on the basis of their date of joining duty in the service as Sub Engineer. The issue was raised in O.P.No.3262/01 which was disposed of under Ext.P5 judgment. This court found that the seniority amongst Sub Engineers is to be determined with reference to Rule 27(c) of the General rules and the date of joining as Sub Engineer is irrelevant. Since all the Sub Engineers had already been promoted as Assistant Engineers, this court directed that the seniority of Sub Engineers and Assistant Engineers will have to be suitably fixed. Ext.P5 was not concerned with the resolution of the dispute between the directly recruited Sub Engineers from the open market and those who W.P.(C).NO.8326/08 :: 3 :: were recruited to the post of Sub Engineers against the 10% quota. 3. Apparently, Ext.P5 has not been implemented fully. But, in the meanwhile, finding that there are adequate number of Assistant Executive Engineers, those among the Assistant Engineers, who were recruited to that post against the 10% quota, were still further promoted as Assistant Executive Engineers. In the course of such promotion, the Assistant Engineers among the petitioners directly recruited to the 40% also came to be promoted. Since there is no separate stream available in the post of Assistant Engineer, the inter se seniority of Assistant Engineers will have to be fixed by taking into account the seniority of those among the Assistant Engineers, who were directly recruited to the 40% quota and of those who were recruited in the 10% quota for in- service engineering graduates and the diploma and certificate holders, who were promoted as Assistant Engineers as such. This exercise was still to be done, according to the petitioners, at the time of the writ petition. W.P.(C).NO.8326/08 :: 4 :: 4. After hearing the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Electricity Board, the following direction was issued on 24.3.2008: “Admit. Issue notice by Speed post. There will be a direction to the third respondent to see that further steps as directed in paragraph 4 of Ext.P5 judgment may be completed and a revised seniority list among the Sub Engineers may be prepared as early as possible, at any rate, on or before 31.5.08. Statement shall be filed indicating this on or before 10.6.08. Resultant number of vacancies in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer that my occur, may also be indicated in the statement/affidavit.” 5. Pursuant thereto, the Electricity Board has filed a counter affidavit and produced therewith Ext.R3(b), which is stated to be the revised seniority list of Assistant Engineers, who were appointed in the 10% in-service quota from the cadre of Sub Engineer. Learned counsel submits that this court may direct implementation of Ext.R3(b) to see that promotions to the post of Assistant Executive W.P.(C).NO.8326/08 :: 5 :: Engineer is regulated on the basis of Ext.R3(b) as such. 6. Learned counsel for some of the respondents submit that all the Sub Engineers, who were directly recruited against 10% quota, had raised a grievance even earlier as to their date of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. This was on the ground that there were sufficient number of vacancies in the 10% quota available for in-service engineering graduates in the post of Assistant Engineer as early as 1995. But they came to be promoted only much later. Apparently there were excess number of directly recruited engineering graduates occupying certain vacancies, which would have rightly gone to the in-service engineering graduates against the 10% quota. By Ext.R5(a) judgment in W.P.(C)No.20219/08, this aspect was directed to be considered by the Electricity Board within a time frame of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. If the claim made by the petitioners in Ext.R5(a), who are some of the contesting respondents is ultimately accepted, then there will be a W.P.(C).NO.8326/08 :: 6 :: revision in the date of promotion shown in Ext.R3(a). 7. Subject to the above, there is no reason why Ext.R3(a) should not be accepted by the parties concerned. If that be so, then the promotions as ordered in Ext.P8 will have to be reviewed in the light of Ext.R3(a). 8. But Ext.R3(a) has been issued purportedly in implementation of Ext.P5(a) judgment and pursuant to the interim order passed by this court. Ext.R3(a) is liable to be implemented. But since some persons, who were not parties to this judgment might be affected, it is necessary that the Board circulates Ext.R3 (a) before proceeding to effect promotions on the basis of Ext.R3(a). Any objection to Ext.R3 (a), which may be raised, shall be considered by the author of Ext.R3(a). The whole process including publication, invitation of objections, consideration of objections and issuance of proceedings either in the form of Ext.R3(a) or in partial modification thereto, shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If W.P.(C).NO.8326/08 :: 7 :: any person raises objections to Ext.R3(a) and such objections are to be considered, then the petitioners will be eligible to get notice of such objections. After completion of the process, as mentioned above, promotions to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer shall be revised on the basis of Ext.R3(a), as it stands now or as it may be modified by reason to any objection that may be preferred by any person who is entitled to do so. This process shall be completed within one month from the date of receipt of objections to Ext.R3(a), as mentioned above. It is made clear that if the objections raised by the petitioners in Ext.R5(a) judgment is ultimately not accepted, he will be entitled to move for a revision of Ext.R3(a) on such basis. The writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//