Disposed

Mohammed Salih.P v. K.S.E.B.

Kerala HC2 Jan 2008WP(C)/15/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common judgment disposed of three writ petitions concerning promotion denial for Assistant Engineers at KSEB. The court declined to decide qualification disputes, directing petitioners to approach the Board with a representation citing K.S.&S.R. Rule 28(bbb). Petitioners were directed not to be reverted during the Board's inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to approach the Board with a revision representation within three weeks; ordered not to be reverted from post.

Mohammed Salih.P Vs K.S.E.B. — 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929

¶4

WP(C).No. 15 of 2008(B) ----------------------------------PETITIONER: -------------------MOHAMMED SALIH P., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), LOWER PERIYAR ERECTION DIVISION, KARIMANAL, THATTEKANNI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN 685 602.

¶5

BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)

¶6

RESPONDENTS:

¶7

------------------------1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (K.S.E.B IN SHORT), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 4.

¶8

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M), K.S.E.B., VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 4.

¶9

3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, GENERATION CIRCLE, K.S.E.B., KOTHAMANGALAM.

¶10

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, L.P.E.D, K.S.E.B, KARIMANAL, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN. 685 602.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI. K.S.ANIL, SC

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2008 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.19 OF 2008 AND WPC.NO. 31 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Kss

¶14

V.GIRI,J.

¶15

W.P ( C) Nos. 15, 19 & 31 of 2008

¶16

Dated this the 2^nd January, 2008

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

Common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions. They have been heard together and in the nature of the directions proposed to be issued, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. The facts referred to, are relatable to W. P (C ) No.15 of 2008.

¶19

The petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board . He was earlier working as Meter Reader/Sub Engineer. He was originally holding a Diploma and subsequently he acquired a B.Tech Degree. As per the Special Rules which stood prior to 1.2.2005, 10% of the vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineers were to be filled up by employees in the Board possessing B.Tech Degree and eligibility was to be determined on the basis of length of service. On the amendment of the Special Rules with effect from 1.2.2005, the 10% quota for Graduate Engineers working in the Electricity Board is to be filled up on selection by the Public Service Commission.

¶20

W.P ( C) Nos. 15, 19 & 31 of 2008

¶21

¶22

Apparently, the amendment of the Special Rules was the subject matter in W.P.(C ) No.22628 of 2003 which was disposed of by Exhibit P1 judgment and affirmed in Exhibit P2, directing that vacancies upto 31.1.2005 should be filled up by the Board itself. It seems that taking note of this, petitioner was promoted under Exhibit P3 order on 5.11.2007. By Exhibit P4, petitioner was relieved from Kannur and posted at Karimanal. He has been working there since 9.11.2007. It seems that some persons who had also aspired for promotion in the 10% quota raised a complaint that some of the persons who have been promoted were not actually qualified as on 31.1.2005. The contention in relation to the petitioner seems to be that though he had appeared in an examination prior to 31.1.2005 and he was successful in the examination, the results thereof were published only subsequent to 31.1.2005. Complaint so raised seems to have been accepted by the Chief Engineer who passed Exhibit P9 order holding that though the petitioner had appeared in the examination held in 2005, the results of the examination were published only on 13.10.2005. Therefore, the petitioner could not be considered as qualified as on 31.1.2005. Exhibit P9

¶23

¶24

W.P ( C) Nos. 15, 19 & 31 of 2008

¶25

is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶26

Similar facts are involved in other two writ petitions as well. Changes are only with reference to the post held by the respective petitioners prior to promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner Dr. K.P.Satheesan submits that the Chief Engineer has failed to take note of Rule 28 (bbb) of Part II of K.S & S.S.R which declares that where the right to get appointment to the post depends on the acquisition of a qualification in a test or any examination, the right must be deemed to be available with reference to the day following the last day of the examination which the incumbents must have successfully participated in, and not the date of publication of the result. He also referred to the decision of this Court in

¶28

Raghavan Pillai Vs. Government of Kerala [1989 (2) KLT 950]

¶29

Learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board Mr. K.P. Anil submits that the examination in question is not a departmental test and therefore the benefit under Rule 28 (bbb) of Part II of K.S.& S.S.R would not be available to the petitioner.

¶30

W.P ( C) Nos. 15, 19 & 31 of 2008

¶31

¶32

In my view, since the impugned orders have been passed by the Chief Engineer, it is appropriate that the issue is dealt with by the Board itself, I also take note of the fact that apart from the aspects which have been mentioned in the order passed by the Chief Engineer, the competent authority will also have to verify the number of vacancies which were to be filled up under the 10% Engineering Graduates quota and whether there were other qualified persons available as on that date. Dr. K.P. Satheesan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a reading of Exhibit P9 order does not suggest that there is any dispute on this aspect. I am not expressing any opinion on the said issue at this stage.

¶33

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to approach the Board with a representation in the form of a revision against the order passed by the Chief Engineer (HRM) (Exhibit P9 in W. P (C ) No.15 of 2008, Exhibit P10 in W.P (C) No. 19 of 2008 and Exhibit P8 in W.P (C) No.31 of 2008) detailing the above mentioned aspects. If it is so done within three weeks, the Board shall hear the petitioners and any other affected persons, conduct necessary enquiry and take a decision

¶34

W.P ( C) Nos. 15, 19 & 31 of 2008

¶35

¶36

on the petitioners claim, within a period of three months thereafter. Since the petitioners were actually promoted and are continuing in the said post, I direct that they shall not be reverted from the post of Assistant Engineer till a decision is taken by the Board, in the manner aforementioned above. The other contentions of petitioners are left open.

¶37

(V.GIRI, JUDGE)

¶38

¶39

W.P ( C) Nos. 15, 19 & 31 of 2008

¶40

¶41

K.THANKAPPAN,J

¶42

CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999

¶43

ORDER

¶44

25^th May, 2007

Mohammed Salih.P v. K.S.E.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Salih.P v. K.S.E.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Praveen Ben George Vs State of Kerala

Mathew Thomas Vs the State of Kerala and Two Others

K.K.Shyamala Vs the State of Kerala

Boby Jacob Vs Kerala State Public Service Commission

Francis M.A Vs State of Kerala and Others