Disposed

Francis Pd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Mar 2021WA/2266/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-court appeal challenged a single judge order dismissing a challenge to alternative engineering qualifications for Assistant Engineers. The bench held that since the rank list had expired years prior, no decision on merits was necessary, though the legal validity of the qualification remains open.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was disposed of without deciding the matter on merits, as the rank list had expired; the legality of the qualification issue is left open.

Francis Pd. Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶7

WA.No.2266 OF 2015

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC 25650/2009 DATED 22-012015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN W.P:

¶10

1 FRANCIS PD.

¶11

PANAKKAL HOUSE, KOTTAPADI P.O., THRISSUR.

¶12

2 ASLAM.P.S. KOCHUNJANGATTAPARAMBU, PANAYIKULAM, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM - 683 511.

¶13

3 FAREEDA A KAREEM AS-HAR GARDEN, EDATHALA, ALUVA.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN.T

¶15

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P(C):

¶16

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶17

2 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶18

3 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶19

4 DEPARTMENT OF ELECTORAL INSPECTORATE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶20

5 SRI.SREEJITH S. SREE, MANIYOOR P.O., PAYYOLI VIA, KOZHIKODE - 673 523.

¶21

WA No.2266/2015

¶22

¶23

6 SRI.MUJEEB A.K. ALACKAL HOUSE, PEZHAKKAPPILLY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 673.

¶24

7 SRI.PRASAD KRISHNAN N. S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, GHITHRA, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 643.

¶25

8 SRI.HARIKUMAR V.P. S/O.VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, GANNGA BHAVAN, KULATHOOR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 583.

¶26

9 SRI.SHAN B.S. S/O.K.BALAKRISHNAN, ARCHANA, ARASUMMOOD, KULATHOOR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 583.

¶27

R2 BY ADV. SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB R3 BY ADV. DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY

¶28

SRI.B.VINOD, SR.GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SMT .A.G.ANITHA

¶29

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

WA No.2266/2015

¶31

¶32

ALEXANDER THOMAS & K.BABU, JJ.

¶33

WA No. 2266 of 2015 [ Arising out of the judgment dated 22-01-2015 in W.P(C)No.25650 of 2009]

¶34

Dated this the 9^th day of March, 2021

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶37

The unsuccessful petitioners in the Writ Petition (Civil), W.P(C) No.25650/2009 has filed this intra court appeal under Sec.5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, so as to impugn the judgment dated 22-012015 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P(C) No.25650/2009.

¶38

Heard Sri.T.Naveen, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A/petitioners in W.P(C), Sri.B.Vinod, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for R1 & R4, Smt.A.G.Anitha, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) appearing for R2 and Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Standing counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission appearing for R3.

¶39

The prayers in the afore captioned Writ Petition (C), W.P(C) No.25650/2009 filed before this Court on 09-09-2009 are as follows:

¶40

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,

¶41

WA No.2266/2015

¶42

¶43

direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P5 & Ext.P1 and quashing the same, to the extent it includes the qualification of B-Tech Degree in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the 2^nd respondent, K.S.E.Board.

¶44

(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P6 Ranked list and quashing the same, to the extent it includes candidates having the qualification of B-Tech Degree in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the 2^nd respondent, K.S.E.Board.

¶45

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring that B-Tech Degree holders in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering are not entitled to get appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the K.S.E.Board pursuant to Exi.P1 Notification and Ext.P6 ranked List.

¶46

(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring that the action of the KSEB in prescribing the qualification of B-Tech Degree in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of law.

¶47

(v) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 3^rd respondent to prepare a fresh ranked list after excluding candidates who possess B-Tech Degree in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering.

¶48

(vi) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the including costs.”

¶49

Exhibit P3 norms/rules which regulate the method of

¶50

appointment and qualification of the post in question stipulates that, for direct recruitment the minimum qualification shall be Degree in Electrical Engineering of any recognized university or any other qualification recognised as equivalent thereto or the other qualifications mentioned in Ext.P3 (See page 67 of this paper book).

¶51

It appears that the Board had ordered that, for the post of

¶52

Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the KSEB, apart from the main

¶53

WA No.2266/2015

¶54

¶55

qualification of Degree in Electrical Engineering of any recognised university, Degree in the Branch of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering of any recognised university will also be an alternative qualification to the said main qualification and this prescription has been made by the competent authority of the respondent KSEB as per Ext.P5 proceedings as early as on 06-031980. It is on this basis that, the respondent Kerala Public Service Commission has issued the impugned Ext.P1 selection notification dated 31-07-2007, inviting applications from qualified hands for selection and appointment in the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the KSEB, wherein apart from the main qualification of the Degree in Electrical Engineering from a recognised university, the alternative qualification of Degree in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering is also treated as accepting qualification.

¶56

The appellants herein/petitioners herein claimed that they have Degree in Electrical Engineering from a recognised university and that the decision taken by the respondent Board and the respondent Public Service Commission to treat that Degree in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering shall be accepted as

¶57

¶58

WA No.2266/2015

¶59

an alternative qualification in view of the main qualification of Degree in Electrical Engineering is per se illegal, ultra vires and unreasonable, etc.

¶60

It is common ground that in pursuance of the impugned Ext.P1 selection notification, Ext.P6 rank list was duly finalised by the respondent Kerala Public Service Commission on 16-06-2009. It is also common ground that, many candidates having their alternative qualification Degree in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering are also included in Ext.P6 rank list.

¶61

The above writ petition (C) has been filed before this Court on 09-09-2009. Thereafter, it is common ground that Ext.P6 rank list has expired on 15-06-2012 going by the mandatory provisions contained in Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure. It is thereafter that the above Writ Petition (C) No.25650/2009 along with two connected matters viz, W.P(C)No.16862/2009 & W.P(C) No.20069/2009 came up for final hearing and the learned Single Judge has thereupon rendered the judgment in these writ petitions on 22-01-2015.

¶62

After hearing both sides, we are of the firm view that since Ext.P6 rank list dated 16-06-2009 had expired as early as on 15-06-

¶63

WA No.2266/2015

¶64

¶65

2012, there is no necessity to decide the issue on merits.

¶66

The appeal has been filed before this Court on 16-092015 along with an application to condone the delay. For reasons not know to this Court, the delay condonation application was not moved subsequently early. It is much later that we had recently condoned the delay of 130 days in filing the above writ appeal on 02-03-2021. It is thereafter, this intra court appeal has been listed for consideration for the first time today (09-03-2021) and as of now, more than six years and one & half months have been elapsed after the impugned judgment rendered in the W.P(C). So also about more than eight & half long years have been elapsed after the expiry of the rank list as early as on 15-06-2012. Hence, we are of the view that there is no necessity to decide the matter on merits. However we make it clear that, the question of law decided in this case as to whether there was any illegality or unreasonableness in accepting the impugned qualification as an alternative qualification, is left open to be raised and decided in appropriate proceedings in the manner known to law. The impugned judgment dated 22-01-2015 rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C)

¶67

WA No.2266/2015

¶68

¶69

No.25650/2009 will stand superseded and modified as above.

¶70

With these observations and directions, the Writ Appeal will

¶71

stand finally disposed of.

¶72

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

K.BABU, JUDGE

¶75

KAS

Francis Pd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Francis Pd. v. State of Kerala

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

State of Kerala Vs Manasa M.K

State of Kerala, Vs Mini v. K.

The State of Kerala Vs Smith G.Pillai

V.S.Vijayan Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

R.Ajai Chandra Vs the Director

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Sreelakshmy v.