Allowed

Geetha.v v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC16 Feb 2018WP(C)/535/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench of Kerala HC quashed Department of Electricity Board order denying promotion to petitioner despite presence of vacancies after ellegibility. Court directed re-consideration of her case based on vacancy occurrence date with final order.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 order quashed. Respondent directed to reconsider petitioner's promotion case based on vacancy occurrence date.

Geetha.v Vs Kerala State Electricity Board — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 27TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 535 of 2014

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

GEETHA.V., CASHIER/JUNIOR ASSISTANT, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KULATHUPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. RESIDING AT RELAX, CHOZHIAKODE P.O., KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN,

¶9

SRI.R.REJI, SMT.THARA THAMBAN, SRI.B.BIPIN.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶12

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

WP(C).No. 535 of 2014 (N)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXHIBIT-P1-	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DEPARTMENTAL TEST RESULT, JULY 2012 PUBLISHED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT-P1(A)-	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 20/12/2012 IN RESPECT OF ACCOUNT TEST (LOWER).
EXHIBIT-P1(B)-	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE 20/12/2012 OF THE DEPARTMENTAL TEST FOR MINISTERIAL STAFF OF THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD CONDUCTED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT-P2-	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 15/04/2013.
EXHIBIT-P3-	TRUE COPY OF THE W.P.(C)NO.17913/2013 (L)
EXHIBIT-P4-	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. EB 3(B)/SA/WP(C)17913/2013 DATED 01/11/2013.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

P.V.ASHA J.

W.P.(C).No.535 of 2014

¶26

------------------------------------- Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2018

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Petitioner, who is presently working as Senior

¶29

Assistant, in Kerala State Electricity Board ('the Board' for short) has filed this writ petition, aggrieved by the denial of promotion with effect from 03.04.2013 along with her juniors.

¶30

Petitioner joined the Board as Junior Assistant on 31.01.2011. Her probation was declared

¶31

with effect from 31.07.2011. She acquired all the test qualifications for promotion as Senior Assistant on 05.12.2012, as per Exts.P1, P1(a) and P1(b) certificates. It is stated that though Ext.P1(b) certificate was issued on 20.12.2012, the result of that examination was published on 05.12.2012.

¶32

Whileso, as per order dated 03.04.2013, the

¶33

Board granted promotion to 111 Junior Assistants including the juniors of petitioner. Seeing this, she

¶34

W.P.(C).No.535 of 2014

¶35

¶36

submitted Ext.P2 representation on 15.04.2013 before the second respondent-Chief Engineer (HRM) stating that she had passed the Departmental tests and including the Account Test (Lower), by appearing in the test in 3^rd paper of the Account Test Lower held on 03.10.2012, the result of which was published on 05.12.2012. She stated that when the Circular was

¶37

issued calling upon the officers to forward the names of qualified hands for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, she was not in possession of the certificate of all the papers. As soon as, her result in the 3^rd paper of Account Test (Lower) was published on 05.12.2012, petitioner requested to forward her name also for consideration for promotion. Therefore petitioner requested to grant her promotion against one of vacancies which existed then, along with her juniors. Petitioner asserts that 200 posts of Senior Assistants were lying vacant at the time when the result was published on 05.12.2012. It is stated that even after orders were issued promoting 111 Junior Assistants, there were

¶38

W.P.(C).No.535 of 2014

¶39

¶40

80 posts of Senior Assistants remaining vacant. She therefore requested to promote her along with those 111 persons. Thereafter, she approached this Court filing W.P.(C).No.17913 of 2013. That writ petition

¶41

was disposed of, as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 18.07.2013, directing the second respondent to

¶42

consider her representation requesting for promotion. The Board thereafter issued Ext.P4 order on 01.11.2013, stating that a cut off date was fixed by the Board in order to ensure that all the employees who are qualified before the last date fixed for receipt of the application are considered for promotion. In the case of promotion to the post of Senior Assistants, the candidates, who have passed departmental test as well as test exempted categories, such as those who have attained 45 years of age or completed 20 years of service were considered against the existing vacancies and thereafter, seniority list was prepared from among the test qualified candidates/test exempted candidates as required and promotion was ordered

¶43

W.P.(C).No.535 of 2014

¶44

¶45

from that list, after observing the essential formalities. It was stated that since the petitioner had not passed the departmental test at the time when proforma for preparing the select list for promotion was called for and as the date of publication of the result was subsequent to that date, her claim was not liable to be considered. It is stated that the date of publication of the result by the PSC is treated as the crucial date of passing departmental test. Her representation was rejected after considering her contentions. Petitioner filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 order, stating that even after granting promotion to 111 persons there were sufficient number of vacancies against which the petitioner could have been promoted. It was also pointed out that as on 05.12.2012, petitioner had acquired all the test qualification and denial of consideration of her case is illegal.

¶46

Respondents have filed a statement,

¶47

stating that the claim of the incumbent can be considered for promotion only in accordance with the

¶48

W.P.(C).No.535 of 2014

¶49

¶50

condition as on the date of occurrence of vacancy, as per Rule 28(b)(i)(4)(d) and 28(b)(i)(10) of Part II of KS&SSR. It is further stated that whenever promotions are to be made, the Board calls for the details of the incumbents in the feeder category, who have passed the requisite test qualification, from the field officers for considering the qualified hands for promotion. The Board, in this case also called for the details of the eligible Junior Assistants/Cashiers/Fair Copy Assistants, who are eligible for promotion against the vacancies of Senior Assistants, as per Circular dated 17.11.2012. The applications in the proforma were to reach the Office of the second respondent on or before 05.12.2012, from among those who had acquired the test qualification; those who passed the departmental test and submitted applications in the proforma on or before 05.12.2012, were included in

¶51

the promotion order issued on 03.04.2013 in accordance with their seniority and eligibility. Out of the 113 applications received, it was found that

¶52

W.P.(C).No.535 of 2014

¶53

¶54

111 persons became eligible for promotion. The petitioner's certificate was forwarded as per letter dated 24.04.2013 to the office of the second

¶55

respondent only after orders of promotion were issued on 03.04.2013.

¶56

I have considered the contentions on both

¶57

sides. It is seen that the respondents have not stated anything regarding the date of occurrence of vacancy or the vacancies, if any, which remained unfilled after the promotion of 111 persons. At the same time, the petitioner also did not produce any material to show that vacancies were available at the time when she got qualified and also to show the number of vacancies, if any, which remained unfilled

¶58

as on the date on which the petitioner acquired qualification. Even though, the respondents have stated that the details of junior Assistants were called for, for promotion against existing

¶59

vacancies, the date of circular or the total number of vacancies of Senior Assistants which existed as

¶60

on 05.12.2012 or even on 03.04.2013 are not

¶61

W.P.(C).No.535 of 2014

¶62

¶63

disclosed. Admittedly, promotions were made only on 03.04.2013, on which day petitioner was also qualified. In case there was any vacancy as on the date on which the petitioner acquired the test qualification, at least on 20.12.2012, when Ext.P1(b) certificate was issued or 17.12.2012, if not on 05.12.2012 when the result was published, petitioner's claim for promotion is liable to be considered in preference to her juniors, who were also having qualification as on that date.

¶64

In the above circumstances, I find that

¶65

the respondents have not considered the claim of the petitioner for promotion in the correct perspective. In case there was any vacancy which arose subsequent to the date on which the petitioner acquired all the qualifications and all the qualified persons senior to her were already promoted or in case there were vacancies in excess of the number of qualified hands

¶66

as on that day, the case of the petitioner shall also be considered and she shall be promoted against one of the vacancies which remained unfilled for

¶67

W.P.(C).No.535 of 2014

¶68

¶69

want of qualified hands. Therefore, Ext.P4 is quashed.

¶70

Therefore there shall be a direction to the second respondent to re-consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as Senior Assistant with reference to the date of occurrence of vacancy and to pass fresh orders, within a period of 'two months' from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment, in the light of the aforesaid observations. In case petitioner is found eligible for promotion against any such vacancies which were available, the petitioner shall be granted all consequential benefits based on such promotion.

¶71

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶72

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶73

Geetha.v v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetha.v v. Kerala State Electricity Board

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

Saithalavi Vs P.K.Sudheer Babu

K.Anilkumar Vs Jayasree

S.K.Haridasan Vs Union of India

Babu C. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

Kannan.P.v Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

P.Raman Vs the Chairman