Dismissed

Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. v. Babu K.P.

Kerala HC15 Jun 2017WA/388/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal against a judgment holding that the Persons with Disabilities Act applies to all appointment posts, including promotions. The Court ruled that horizontal reservation provisions apply regardless of whether the appointment is by direct recruitment or promotion.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed, upholding the Single Judge's direction to treat promotional posts under reservation.

Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. Vs Babu… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/25TH JYAISHTA, 1939 WA.No. 388 of 2017 () IN WP(C).23104/2016 ------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23104/2016 DATED 22-11-2016 -----------------

¶4

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 :-

¶5

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶6

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶7

BY ADV. SMT.ANEETHA A.G., SC, KSEB

¶8

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER :-

¶9

BABU K.P., SUB ENGINEER (ELE), KSEB, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, THALASSERY, R/AT KATILPARAMBATH, P.O.PARALI, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 671.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH

¶11

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

jvt

¶13

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, CJ & RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶14

W.A. No.388 of 2017

¶15

Dated this the 15^th day of June 2017

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

Navaniti Prasad Singh, CJ

¶18

We have heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short, the 'Board') at length as well as learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.

¶19

The issue in this appeal is with regard to the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22.11.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No.23104 of 2016. Learned Single Judge held that as the post of Assistant Engineer in the Board was a post identified for reservation for Persons with Disability, all appointments made to the post would be subject to horizontal reservation as provided under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of the Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

¶20

The dispute was that the writ petitioner/respondent was a person with disability. He was confirmed in the service of the Board on the quota for Persons with Disability. He was originally a Sub Engineer (Electrical). He is a diploma holder and not a

¶21

W.A. No.388 of 2017

¶22

-: 2 :-

¶23

Graduate Engineer. There is a post of Assistant Engineer in the Board, which the Board had identified as the post to which reservation under the above Act would apply. It has primarily two sources for appointment. (1) 50% of the vacant post are through direct recruitment, and (2) out of the balance 50%, 30% are reserved for promotion from diploma holders and 20% from certificate holders, who are already in service. The fact of the matter is that nonetheless they are all appointments either by direct appointment or by promotion. The Board also understood the same till the Managing Director took a decision vide order dated 30.11.2013 purporting to consider the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & another v. National Federation of the Blind & others [(2013) 10 SCC 772], wherein the Apex Court had categorically held that reservation under this Act would be applicable only to direct recruitment and not to recruitment through promotion.

¶24

We have gone through the said judgment and we find the said findings of the Managing Director not to be correct. There is no such observation. To the contrary, we have the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India [(2016) 13 SC 153], wherein their Lordships

¶25

W.A. No.388 of 2017

¶26

-: 3 :-

¶27

have clearly held that irrespective of the fact that it is a promotion or a direct recruitment, if it is an appointment, the provisions of the Act would apply. In other words, the provisions of the Act would apply in all situations where appointments are to be made by promotion or otherwise. If this be the law, then, the learned Single Judge has not erred in so holding and directing the Board to consider the case of the writ petitioner/respondent for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer in the quota reserved for diploma holder, on the basis of horizontal reservation.

¶28

We, thus, find no merit in the writ appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed.

¶29

Sd/NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH CHIEF JUSTICE

¶30

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V J UDGE

¶31

//TRUE COPY//

¶32

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶33

Jvt/16.6.2017

Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. v. Babu K.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. v. Babu K.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority (Trida) Vs Thomas Abraham

Suo Motu Vs the Union of India

Shaiju.T.P Vs Kerala Feeds Limited

Thiruvananthapuram Corporation Vs S Krishnakumar

Cannore District Bus Operators Association Vs State of Kerala

S.Venugopal Vs Airports Authority of India