Disposed

J.Ajith Kumar v. the Secretary, Kseb

Kerala HC11 Jan 2008WP(C)/12949/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Sub Engineer promoted to Assistant Engineer via 40% quota, challenged non-accommodation against available 10% in-service quota vacancies prior to his official promotion date. Court directed Board to verify vacancy existence and adjust promotions accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be considered for promotion against the 10% quota if a vacancy existed post-rejoining and no senior was eligible.

J.Ajith Kumar Vs the Secretary, Kseb — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 12949 of 2007(N)

¶5

----------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

---------------------

¶8

J.AJITH KUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. JANARDHANAN PILLAI, ASST. ENGINEER, 110 KV SUB STATION, VARKALA, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT KRISHNANJANA, KATAMBATTUKONAM, PARIPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM-591 574.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JNANASEKHARAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

------------------------1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KSEB, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

3. R.G.SARALADEVI, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, 110 KV SUB STATION, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Kss

¶17

WPC.NO.12949/2007 N

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1:	COPY OF REVISED PROVISIONAL GRADATION LIST OF ASST.ENGINEERS (ELE.) DTD. 26/02/2004.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF THE FINALISED SENIORITY LIST OF ASST. ENGINEERS (ELE.) DTD. 27/11/2004.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 25/04/2006 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF THE DETAILS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT ON 12/12/2006.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DTD. 3/12/1999 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN O.P.13494 OF 1997.
EXT.P6:	COPY OF THE ORDER OF ADOPTION OF G.O.(P) NO.616/2003/FIN DTD. 19/11/03 BY THE K.S.E.B.
EXT.P7:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 8/09/2006 BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P8:	COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 15/09/2006 BY STATION ENGINEER, VARKALA.
EXT.P9:	COPY OF THE CHART SHOWING THE DETAILS OF 10% (ELE.) AS PER EXT.P2.
EXT.P10:	COPY OF THE FIRST PAGE OF THE SENIORITY LIST.
EXT.P10(A):	COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PAGE 19 OF THE SENIORITY LIST.
EXT.P11:	COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25/07/2007 BY THE KSEB AS ASST. ENGINEERS IN THE 40% DIRECT RECRUITMENT QUOTA.

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

Kss

V.GIRI, J.

W.P.(C).No.12949 of 2007

¶26

Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2008.

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Petitioner entered service of the Kerala State Electricity Board as Sub Engineer on 02.01.1990. He obtained a B.Tech Degree in September, 1995. He applied for Leave Without Allowances for 5 years for taking up employment abroad with effect from 1.12.1995. But, he cancelled the unexpired portion of leave and rejoined duty on 1.8.1996.

¶29

It is stated that 40% of the vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineer in the Board is to be filled up by Engineering Graduates from the open market. Apparently, it was taking note of the fact that the petitioner acquired the B.Tech Degree in 1995 that he was temporarily promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer under the 40% quota with effect from 21.8.1996. Petitioner now contends that, at that point of time, there were actually vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineer under the 10% quota available for in-service Engineering Graduates and if

¶30

W.P.(C).NO.12949/07

¶31

:: 2 ::

¶32

that be so, the petitioner should have been considered for promotion against the said 10% quota, at least, in relation to such vacancies which had arisen subsequent to 1.8.1996, when he rejoined duty. He refers to Exts.P10 and P11 to contend for the position that persons, who had joined as Assistant Engineers on 9.8.1997 and who were, therefore, to be put on probation for a period of two years within a period of 3 years, were nevertheless granted promotion, prior to he being promoted or considered for promotion as Assistant Engineer. Petitioner has now been assigned a date of promotion in the post of Assistant Engineer only with effect from 7.7.2000. Petitioner has been accommodated in the post of Assistant Engineer in a vacancy which had arisen only on 7.7.2000, whereas there were vacancies in the 10% quota available for in-service Engineering Graduates well before 7.7.2000. According to the petitioner, such vacancies were definitely available between 1.1.1995 and 1.1.1996 and even thereafter, as could be seen from Exts.P5 and P9.

¶33

W.P.(C).NO.12949/07

¶34

:: 3 ::

¶35

I heard learned counsel for the petitioner

¶36

and the standing counsel for the Electricity Board.

¶37

The only question to be considered is

¶38

whether there was any vacancy in the 10% quota for in-service Engineering Graduates available, so that the petitioner could be accommodated against the same on any date prior to 7.7.2000 and whether on the strength of seniority, the petitioner could have been accommodated against the said vacancies. In my view, this is an aspect, which has to be considered by the Board. Though the petitioner has raised a claim against the promotion of the 3^rd respondent, who was his junior, the said claim is not pressed in the light of the fact that 3^rd respondent's turn for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer had arisen, during the period from 1.12.1995 to 31.3.1996, when the petitioner was on leave without allowance for taking up employment abroad.

¶39

In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider whether there was any vacancy in the post of

¶40

W.P.(C).NO.12949/07

¶41

:: 4 ::

¶42

Assistant Engineer available to be filled up by the petitioner, immediately after the petitioner rejoined duty on 1.8.1996. If such vacancy was there and there was no senior to the petitioner, who was otherwise eligible to be promoted against the said vacancy as such and awaiting promotion against the 10% quota available for in-service Engineering Graduates, the petitioner's claim shall be considered against the said vacancy and appropriate orders shall be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶43

Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE

¶44

sk/

¶45

//true copy//

¶46

P.S. To Judge

J.Ajith Kumar v. the Secretary, Kseb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Ajith Kumar v. the Secretary, Kseb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thankachan Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

U.Suresan Vs State of Kerala

Subhash V.K. Vs State of Kerala & Others

N.K.Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

C.R. Chandralekha Vs Director of Insurance Medical Services