IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 OP.No. 21527 of 1997(K) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. N.VENUGOPAL, ASST. ENGINEER, ERECTION DIVISION, KSEB, SEETHATHODE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. K.SANAL KUMAR, ASST.ENGINEER, CARRIER SECTION, KSEB, KUNDARA, KOLLAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUGATHAN SRI.A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PANICKER SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.S.E.B., REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL GENERAL), KSEB, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 3. K.M.MAMMU, ASST.EXE. ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, VALAYAM CHIRANGARA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. 4. K.P.SASI, ASST. EXE. ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, THENGANA, KOTTAYAM DIST. SRI.T.A.SHAJI FOR R4 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 & R2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 7.10.2008 THE COURT ON 07/10/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO.21527/97. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.13.7.67. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.9.12.70. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.25.9.75. P4. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.216/93 OF THIS COURT. P5. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.3.11.93 IN C.C.C.NO.228/93 OF THIS COURT. P6. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.894/97 OF THIS COURT. P7. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD.27.8.97 OF R2. P7(A) COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF SENIORITY LIST. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No.21527 of 1997 ================== Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are direct recruits as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) in the Kerala State Electricity Board appointed pursuant to advice of the PSC on 26.12.1989. As per Exts.P1, P2 and P3 orders of the Board, a ratio is prescribed for filling up the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) as 1:4:3:2 from among the graduate engineers in service, engineering graduates from open market, by promotion from promotees from diploma holders in service and promotees from among the certificate holders in service. For a long time the Electricity Board did not choose to report vacancies to PSC for direct recruitment between 1986 and 1989. Even before 1986 and subsequent to 1986 also several vacancies earmarked for direct recruits were filled up by promotion from among the three other categories. This was subject matter of chall enge in O.P.No.3010/1989, in which, by judgment dated 2.11.1992, this Court directed that the ratio as mentioned above should be maintained strictly. The judgment in that original petition was taken in appeal and a Division Bench o.p.21527/97 2 rendered Ext.P4 judgment wherein also it was directed that the ratio should be strictly maintained. In spite of the same, the Electricity Board did not choose to alter the inter se seniority between the direct recruits and promotees in accordance with the ratio so prescribed in the recruitment rules. In Ext.P5 judgment in the contempt case also this Court, in paragraph 7, held thus: “7. We direct that the promotions given to the promotees towards the 40% quota of direct recruits be reviewed forthwith as directed in W.A.No.216/93 and for that purpose, no fresh notices to the promotees occupying the said 40% quota of direct recruits is necessary. The Board will, therefore, adjust the promotees in their 10% quota, revert the promotees occupying the 40% quota of direct recruits. For that purpose, the Board will publish a list based on the principles stated in W.A.No.216/93 and implement the same. Thereafter, if any further representation are made by the promotees, the Board can deal with the same after issuing notices to the direct recruits.” Still in the matter of fixation of seniority the ratio has not been followed. Some of the direct recruits including the petitioners approached this Court again and Ext.P6 judgment followed wherein again this Court directed to review the seniority in the category of Assistant Engineers in accordance with the ratio and to review all promotions in the post of Assistant Executive Engineers accordingly. Despite the same, Ext.P7 order has been passed issuing Ext.P7(a) gradation list of Assistant Engineers, wherein also the Electricity Board still opted not to maintain the o.p.21527/97 3 ratio prescribed in the recruitment rules for the purpose of preparing the seniority list. It is under the above circumstances the petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P7 and P7(a) seniority list. 2. The petitioners point out that prior to the appointment of the petitioners the last direct recruit was M.S.Nandagopal in 1986, who has been included in Ext.P7 (a) seniority list as serial No.1645. Counting from him, the 1st petitioner ought to have been included as serial No.1652 if seniority was fixed strictly in accordance with the ratio in the recruitment rules. But in Ext.P7(a) seniority list 53 promotees have been en bloc included as 1653 to 1717 (except 9 numbers) without any regard to the ratio prescribed under the recruitment rules. The petitioners, therefore, submit that Ext.P7(a) list is liable to be set aside and respondents 1 and 2 be directed to revise the seniority list giving appropriate places for all the direct recruits in accordance with the ratio prescribed for filling up the post. The petitioners also seek a direction to revise all further seniority lists based on Ext.P7(a) as also the promotions made based on the said seniority list. o.p.21527/97 4 3. The petitioners have taken out notice by publication impleading respondents 3 and 4 in a representative capacity as permitted by this Court. However, none has come forward to contest the original petition, not even respondents 3 and 4. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Electricity Board which indirectly admits that Ext.P7(a) list has not been drawn up strictly in accordance with the ratio prescribed in the recruitment rules. They refer to some settlements as the reason for not following the ratio. But they have not even produced copy of any settlement. Except a vague statement in the counter affidavit nothing concrete has been brought forward to controvert the specific contention of the petitioners. In any event, when the seniority has to be fixed based on the ratio prescribed in the recruitment rules, respondents 1 and 2 cannot draw up a seniority list violating that ratio. A mere look at Ext.P7(a) list proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that it has not been prepared in accordance with the ratio among the four categories mentioned above. Clearly the direct recruits have not been given their appropriate places in Ext.P7(a) seniority list. For eg. from serial Nos.1653 to 1717 in Ext.P7(a), 53 promotees have been o.p.21527/97 5 included after M.S.Nandagopal, who was the last direct recruit prior to the appointment of the petitioners. The 1st petitioner was 1st rank holder in the selection in 1989. Strictly going by the ratio the 1st petitioner ought to have been serial No.1653 in the list whereas serial No. 1653 in Ext.P7(a), a promotee. The 1st petitioner has been included as serial No.1719 and the 2nd petitioner has been included as serial No.1969. It is strange to note that persons shown at Serial Nos.1663 to 1688 have been again shown at serial Nos. 1723 to 1840 as demonstrated in ground “C” of the original petition. That being so, clearly Exts.P7 and P7(a) have not been prepared in accordance with the ratio. The seniority list is therefore liable to be set aside. I do so. A fresh seniority list giving appropriate seniority to the direct recruits including petitioners 1 and 2 in accordance with the ratio prescribed among the four categories of recruits in the recruitment rules as also Exts.P4, P5 and P6 judgments of this Court. Revised seniority list in accordance with the above directions shall be prepared within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. If any subsequent seniority list has been prepared based on Ext.P7(a) in o.p.21527/97 6 any cadre, the same shall also be revised accordingly. Needless to say, promotions and higher grades given in accordance with the seniority in Ext.P7(a) shall also be reviewed accordingly, within one month after the finalisation of the seniority list as directed above. The original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge o.p.21527/97 7 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================ O.P.No.21527 of 1997-M ================ J U D G M E N T 7th October, 2008