Kerala High Court
V.Sumesh vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 19 January, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/4TH ASHADHA 1934
WA.No. 432 of 2011 IN WPC:8508/2007
----------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.8508/2007 DATED 19-01-2011
..............
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
---------------------------
V.SUMESH, LINEMAN GRADE-I,
66 K.V.SUB STATION, K.S.E.B.CHOVVA, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.M.PAREETH
SRI.MOHAMMED SHAMEEL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS &ADDL.RESPONDENT:
-----------------------------------------------------------
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM),
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE.P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB
R3 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.P.I. DAVIS.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-06-2012,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & A.M. Shaffique, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A.No. 432 OF 2011
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 25th day of June, 2012
JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board and Kerala Public Service Commission.
2. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein was a holder of ITI qualification in the trade of Electrician. It is also not in dispute that he was a trade apprentice in Kerala State Electricity Board. The appellant approached the learned Single Judge seeking the following relief claiming benefit based on the judgment of the Apex Court at Ext.P3:
"i) a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the first respondent to take immediate steps to implement the direction in para 12 of Ext.P3 judgment by amending the special rules for recruitment to the post of Sub Engineer(Ele.) making provision for preferential claim either in the in service quota or open market quota for apprentices trained under the KSEB with the concurrence of the third respondent Kerala Public Service Commission."
3. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, he gets a preferential right to be appointed, having completed WA No. 432 of 2011 -:2:- successful training as 'trainee apprentice' with the respondent Electricity Board. It is not in dispute that advice memo has to be sent by the Commission after completing the process of selection.
4. A reading of Ext.P3, as pointed out by the learned Single Judge, nowhere says there has to be amendment of the recruitment rules. Apparently, Commission will implement the recruitment rules and it may also amend the rules of recruitment from time to time depending upon the facts and circumstances. In the present case, admittedly, no rule of recruitment process indicates that such preferential right being vested with the trainee apprentice. A reading of the entire judgment of the Apex Court at Ext.P3 would rather indicate that having spent money on imparting training to the apprentices, it would be beneficial to give preference to such trainees.
5. It has to be a unanimous decision by the authorities concerned to give preference either to all the trainees or certain percentage of the apprentice trainees. Even otherwise, when the process of selection involves necessary qualification and other consideration, trainee apprentices must satisfy those requisite qualification and then, at the most, in the viva or at the WA No. 432 of 2011 -:3:- end of the selection process they may at the most give some weightage to the trainee apprentices. In the absence of any amendment to the recruitment rules as such, the Electricity Board cannot be found fault with. Even Public Service Commission cannot implement, in the absence of any such recruitment rules. The judgment of the Apex Court seems to be in the year 1995. If there was violation of any positive direction, someone would have already preferred a contempt. The judgment only indicates suggestions and guidelines and they cannot be considered as directions.
In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the writ petition. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ appeal.
Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice.
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
ttb/25/06 WA No. 432 of 2011 -:4:-