IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH APRIL 2011 / 9TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 12671 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SANTHOSH N.C., SUB ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL SECTION), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.MATHEWS RAJU RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. K.V.SURENDRAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), TRANS CIR KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.K.S.ANIL (KSEB) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.12671 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th April, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as a Sub Engineer in the Electrical Section of the Kerala State Electricity Board. He is a diploma holder in Electrical Engineering. The third respondent is an Industrial Training Institute (ITI) certificate holder. The gradation number of the petitioner in the list is 2427 with seniority date as 2.5.2003 while the gradation number of the third respondent is 2515 with seniority date as 8.7.2004. In spite of the above, the petitioner complains that the third respondent was promoted as an Assistant Engineer overlooking the seniority and rightful claim of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, preference is given by the respondent to ITI certificate holders while diploma holders like the petitioner are not protected. 2. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 to the second respondent setting out his grievances in detail and seeking appropriate reliefs. However, it is his complaint that no WPC No.12671/2011 2 orders have been passed thereon till date. 3. In view of the fact that the grievances of the petitioner are pending consideration of the second respondent, I do not think it necessary to pronounce on the sustainability of the said grievances. It is sufficient that Ext.P2 is directed to be disposed of expeditiously. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioner set out in Ext.P3 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/