Kerala High Court
O.Muhammed Ali vs Kerala State Electricity Board
Author: A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
Bench: A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935
WP(C).No. 20738 of 2009 (J)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------------------
1. O.MUHAMMED ALI, AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O.ALAWI, CASHIER, ELECTRICAL SECTION,
KSEB, KUMARAMBATHUR, PALAKKAD.
2. MAYANKUTTY.T.M., S/O.MOHAMMED,
ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, VALLOORKUNNAM,
MUVATTUPUZHA.
3. SREELAN.M.S, S/O.SUKUMARAN,
ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, VYPEEN.
4. K.G.SAJEEVAN, S/O.GOPALAN,
CASHIER, ELECTRICAL SECTION NO.2, KSEB
MUVATTUPUZHA.
5. JAWAHEAR.K.K., S/O.AHMEDKUNJU LABBA,
CASHIER ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KSEB, PUNALUR.
6. P.B.SATHEESAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN,
CASHIER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.
7. GOKUL DAS.K,
CASHIER, ELECTRICAL SECTION,
UPPALA, KASARAGOD.
8. BALAKRISHNA.K.,
CASHIER, ELECTRICAL SECTION,
KUMBALA, KASARAGOD.
9. SAJEEV.K.N.,
CASHIER ELECTRICAL SECTION, SHORANOOR.
BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM.
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. SECRETARY,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
WP(C).No. 20738 of 2009 (J)
:2:
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HRM,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
5. T.D.RAJESH KUMAR,
ELECTRICAL SECTION, KALOOR,
OPPOSITE TO INTERNATIONAL STADIUM, ERNAKULAM.
R1 to R3 BY ADVS. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB.
SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB
R4 BY SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-11-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 20738 of 2009 (J)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER NO.1439/95 DATED 14-7-95.
P2:- COPY OF BOARD CIRCULAR NO.4/G/20/99 DATED FEBRUARY,1999.
P3:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
17-7-2000.
P4:- COPY OF INFORMATION OBTAINED ON 23-1-2007 UNDER THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT.
P5:- COPY OF THE INFORMNATION RECEOVED FROM THE KSEB ON 18-4-2009.
P5(A):- COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BOARD.
P6:- COPY OF PROMOTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HRM
DATED 10.9.2008.
P7:- COPY OF SENIORITY LIST OF JR. ASSISTANT/CASHIER FROM 15.1.81
ISSUED AS PER PROCEEDINGS OF CHIEF ENGINEER, HRM DATED 30.6.2006.
P8:- COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 2.6.2008.
P9:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1ST APRIL, 2009 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT.
P10:- COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO.31029/03.
P11:- COPY OF BOARD ORDER DATED 20.12.2008.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL.
/True Copy/
P.A to Judge
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P(C) No.20738 of 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 28th day of November, 2013
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have approached this Court seeking appropriate direction to include them in the seniority list of Junior Assistant/Cashier in the respective places.
2. The petitioners are persons who were appointed consequent to the advice memo issued by the Public Service Commission. The petitioners were given promotion as Linemen Grade.I & II categories by the respondent Board. Their grievance was that they are entitled to further promotion to the post of Junior Assistant/Cashier under the 20% quota.
3. However, the respondent Board has amended the Rules whereby a suitability test was made mandatory for giving promotion under 20% quota from 14.7.1995. Initially, the PSC took the stand that they would not consider the claim of the persons like the petitioners for suitability test, which was challenged before this Court and this Court directed the Government to resolve the issue. WP(C).20738/2009 -:2:-
4. While so, the PSC suo moto included the petitioners in the suitability test. The petitioners alleged that as per the suitability test which was was conducted on 2.2.08 by the respondent Board, 180 persons, including the petitioners had gone through the test and as per Ext.P6 order, the petitioners were given promotion. The petitioners further allege that, in the meantime, persons who were advised under the direct recruitment quota i.e. 80% quota, were given promotions and also they were granted position in the seniority list ignoring 20% candidates like the petitioners.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent Board.
6. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the limited prayer in this writ petition is to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of Rule 13A(b) of KS & SSR, which reads as follows:-
"(b) Where a pass in a special or departmental test is newly prescribed by the Special Rules of a service for any category, grade or post therein or in any class thereof, a member of a service who has not passed the said test but is otherwise qualified and suitable for appointment to WP(C).20738/2009 -:3:- such class, category, grade or post may within two years of the introduction of the test, be appointed thereto temporarily."
7. This Court is of the definite view that there is no harm in giving such a direction to the respondent Board to consider the claim of the petitioners, in the light of the above Rules.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to file a petition before the 2nd respondent within one month from today incorporating the claim as above. In the event of filing such a petition, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders after affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard within three months.
Sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE krj /True Copy/ P.A to Judge