Kerala High Court
The Chief Engineer vs Balachandran K.S on 8 October, 2025
WA Nos.77/2016 & 2234/2023 1
2025:KER:73103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 16TH ASWINA, 1947
WA NO.2234 OF 2023
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.05.2023 IN WP(C)
NO.3936/2011 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN WP(C):
1 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM),
K.S.E.B. VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
2 THE SECRETARY K.S.E.B.,
VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN
SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WP(C):
RAJESH K.,
CHERKALA ELECTRICAL SECTION, CHERKALA,
KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN - 671323
BY ADVS.
SMT.ANNAMMA PHILIP
SRI.NISHIN GEORGE VIJAYABABU
SRI.HAFY PUNTHALA WILSON
WA Nos.77/2016 & 2234/2023 2
2025:KER:73103
SMT.NIMISHA M.G.
SMT.HASEENA K.A.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.09.2025, ALONG WITH WA NO.77/2016, THE COURT ON
08.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA Nos.77/2016 & 2234/2023 3
2025:KER:73103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 16TH ASWINA, 1947
WA NO.77 OF 2016
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.07.2014 IN WP(C)
NO.8785/2010 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM),
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004
2 THE SECRETARY,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON, SC, KSEB
SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
BALACHANDRAN K.S.,
CASHIER, VYPPIN SECTION,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MALIPPURAM,
NOW RESIDING AT KALLUMADATHIL HOUSE,
NAYARAMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682509
BY ADV SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.09.2025, ALONG WITH WA NO.2234/2023, THE COURT ON
08.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA Nos.77/2016 & 2234/2023 4
2025:KER:73103
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2025 Syam Kumar V.M., J.
These Writ Appeals filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) are heard and disposed of together since they raise common questions for consideration.
2. Writ Appeal No.77 of 2016 is filed challenging the judgment dated 23.07.2014 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.8785 of 2010, allowing the Writ Petition and quashing Ext.P5 order, which held that the respondent employee is ineligible to get regularisation as a cashier as he had not passed the suitability test and inter alia seeking a direction to the KSEB to consider the petitioner therein for regularisation in the post of cashier expeditiously.
3. Writ Appeal No.2234 of 2023 is filed challenging the judgment dated 25.05.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.3936 of 2011 disposing of the W.P.(C) inter alia directing the case of the respondent employee for regularisation and for consequential promotion to the post of Senior Assistant without WA Nos.77/2016 & 2234/2023 5 2025:KER:73103 taking objection regarding the suitability test and to carry out the said exercise within the period specified in the judgment.
4. The question that comes up for consideration in both these Writ Appeals concerns the applicability of the benefit of Rule 13B of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (KS & SSR) and the proviso thereto. Rule 13B and proviso thereof stipulate that the persons who had attained 50 years on or after 26.08.1981 shall be eligible for permanent exemption from passing of the obligatory departmental tests.
5. The respondent in Writ Appeal No.77 of 2016 had in the W.P.(C) contended that after his appointment to the post of cashier on 24.08.2007, a notification for conducting the suitability test was issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) on 21.07.2009 and by that time, he had crossed 50 years of age, he is entitled to get the benefit of permanent exemption under Rule 13B of Part II of the KS & SSR. On similar lines, the respondent in W.A.No.2234 of 2023 had contended that, he attained the age of 50 years in the year 2006 and till 2009 no examination had been held by the KPSC and hence he could not have been imposed, with the WA Nos.77/2016 & 2234/2023 6 2025:KER:73103 condition of undergoing suitability test in view of Rule 13B of the KS & SSR and the proviso thereto, which envisaged a deemed exemption. The said contentions had been upheld by the learned Single Judge and it was held that the respective respondents are entitled to the benefit of deemed exemption under the relevant provision of the KS & SSR. Aggrieved by the same, the KSEB has preferred these appeals.
6. We have heard Sri.Antony Mukkath, Advocate for the appellant KSEB and Sri.Dinesh R.Shenoy, Advocate & Sri.Hafy Punthala Wilson, Advocate for the respondent employee in the Writ Appeals.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant KSEB submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge overlooks the fact that exemption, if any, under Rule 13B of Part II of the KS & SSR and Proviso applies only to Departmental Tests and not to Suitability Tests. According to the learned counsel, Rule 13B had no applicability at all to the fact situation of the respondents as it applies only to Departmental tests. The test in the cases at hand was a suitability test mandated and stipulated under the Special WA Nos.77/2016 & 2234/2023 7 2025:KER:73103 Rules applicable to the KSEB as a prescribed qualification. Pointing to Ext.R1(a), which is an order dated 14.07.1995 issued by the KSEB, it is contended that the same is the Special Rule as far as the KSEB is concerned and though Rule 13B would apply to the KSEB since this test has been prescribed as a qualification, the same cannot be exempted. The said aspect has been overlooked in the impugned judgments and the said error needs to be corrected by allowing the appeals.
8. Per contra, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent employees that Ext.R1(a) is only an Executive Order and not a Special Rule. Reliance is placed on the definition of Special Rules in Rule 2 (1) of KS & SSR. Further pointing to Circular No.II dated 13.10.2006 issued by the Board, it is contended that the same specifically exempts the suitability test, which had been enumerated as (3) in the qualification. Relying on Ext.P2 issued by the Board, it is submitted that it had been stipulated therein that the appointees will be regularised in the quota only after they pass the prescribed eligibility test conducted by the KPSC. Over and above the same, it is the specific contention of the WA Nos.77/2016 & 2234/2023 8 2025:KER:73103 learned counsel that the KSEB has not conducted any test till the respondent employees attained the age of 50 years. The respondent employees have now already retired. According to the learned counsel, no other persons are remaining in the cadre who could put forth a claim as have been done by the respondent employees.
9. To buttress the contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the dictum laid down in Somarajan M. and another v. State of Kerala and others [2007 (1) KHC 102] submitted that Rule 13B covers everybody and that the exemption provided is from the obligatory departmental test, which is intended for incumbents who have crossed 50 years of age and completed 25 years of service. It is thus a permanent exemption. On the other hand, the exemption provided for in Rule 13A, which is extended by Rule 13AA and 13AB is a temporary exemption from passing special or departmental tests. Reliance is also placed on the dictum laid down in M.K.Sekharan and another v. Managing Director, KSRTC [2019/KER/59793, W.A.No.191/2017 dated 10.10.2019 of this Court], wherein it was held that the exemption for an employee on attaining 50 years and completing 25 years of service would not WA Nos.77/2016 & 2234/2023 9 2025:KER:73103 apply to obligatory departmental test prescribed under the Special Rules. The learned counsel thus prays that the Writ Appeals filed by the Board lack merit and the same may be dismissed.
10. We have heard both sides and have considered the respective contentions put forth. We note that the learned Single Judge, while disposing of W.P.(C) No.8785 of 2010, has elaborately considered the questions raised and after a detailed appreciation of all issues involved, has noted that on the date of issuance of the relevant notification calling applications for suitability test, the respondent employee had crossed the age limit of 50 years. Insofar as he had thus crossed 50 years, by virtue of the proviso to explanation under Rule 13B, it was certainly open to him to claim permanent exemption and he is entitled to get permanent exemption. Therefore, the fact that he had not responded to the notification and appeared for the suitability test, it was held, could not be assigned as a reason for treating the respondent employee as ineligible to get confirmation to the post of cashier based on the appointment under Ext.P2. It was thus concluded that when a person is found eligible for permanent exemption from passing a WA Nos.77/2016 & 2234/2023 10 2025:KER:73103 test, the reason that he had not passed the test cannot be put against him, as he is permanently exempted from passing the test or, rather, acquiring the said qualification. It was thus held that a person who stood permanently exempted from acquiring a particular qualification cannot be held ineligible owing to the failure to pass the same, or he would be required to pass the same once he acquired the permanent exemption. The learned Single Judge while disposing of W.P.(C) No.3936 of 2011, has specifically noted the mandates of Rule 13B of the KS & SSR and proviso thereof and that the respondent employee had attained the age of 50 years in the year 2006 and concededly, till 2009, no examination was held by the KPSC. Hence, it was concluded that the respondent employee could not have been imposed with the condition of undergoing the suitability test in view of the proviso and the envisaged deemed exemption. It was also noted that no other objection had been taken with regard to the qualification or suitability of the respondent employee for promotion, except for the issue of suitability test. This had led the learned Single Judge to conclude that the appellant - KSEB is to be directed to take a call for considering the WA Nos.77/2016 & 2234/2023 11 2025:KER:73103 case of the respondent employee for regularisation and consequential promotion to the post of Senior Assistant without taking objection to the non-passing of the suitability test in view of the proviso Rule 13B, Part II of the KS & SSR. We find no reason to interfere with the said conclusion that has been validly arrived at by the learned Single Judge. Nothing has been placed before us to controvert or to term as erroneous the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgments. We also take specific note of the fact that no test had been conducted till the respondent employees attained the age of 50 years, thereby rendering the Boards claim that they failed to qualify by taking the test, irrelevant.
We thus find no cause or reason to interfere with the judgments impugned. The Writ Appeals fail and they are dismissed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE csl WA Nos.77/2016 & 2234/2023 12 2025:KER:73103 APPENDIX OF WA 2234/2023 APPELLANT ANNEXURES Annexure Board Order No.1439/95 (Estt.II-
2185/90) dated 14-07-1995