Kerala High Court
V.S. Ajayan vs Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb on 8 October, 2025
WA NO.1660/2023 1
2025:KER:74023
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.1660 OF 2023
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.02.2023 IN WP(C)
NO.35681/2009 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
V.S.AJAYAN,
ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL), KERALA STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD, ACHANKOVIL HYDRO ELECTRIC
PROJECT, ACHANKOVIL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT,
NOW WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(CIVIL), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CIVIL-
CONSTRUCTION-SOUTH), KSEB LTD., VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW (SR.)
SRI.ARUN THOMAS
SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA
SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
SRI.ABI BENNY AREECKAL
SRI.MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS
SRI.KURIAN ANTONY MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & ADDL. RESPONDENTS 8 TO 24:
1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 695004
WA NO.1660/2023 2
2025:KER:74023
2 G.SREEKUMARAN,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.GOPALA PILLAI, SECRETARY,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM),
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
4 M.G.MOHAN,
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CIVIL), CIVIL CIRCLE,
KSEBOARD, PALLOM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686007
5 V.AJITHKUMAR,
PROJECT MANAGER, MANKULAM HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT,
KSE BOARD, MANKULAM P.O., VIA ADIMALY,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685565
6 JAMES JOSEPH,
PROJECT MANAGER, SENKULAM TAIL RACE SCHEME &
CHINNAR HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT, KSE BOARD,
VELLATHOOVAL.P.O., VIA ADIMALY,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685653
7 N.R.SANDHYA RAJ,
PROJECT MANAGER, IDUKKI AUGMENTATION SCHEME,
KSE BOARD, MOOLAMATTOM P.O.,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685589
8 GEORGE JOY,
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PES DIVISION-3,
CHITHIRAPURAM, IDUKKI, PIN - 685565
9 U.SANTHOSH KUMAR,
ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SUB DIVISION NO.II,
PES DIVISION NO.III, KSEB,
CHITHIRAPURAM, IDUKKI, PIN 685565.
RESPONDENT NO.9 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY
AS PER ORDER DATED 7/2/2024 IN I.A.NO.2/2024 IN
WA NO.1660/2023.
WA NO.1660/2023 3
2025:KER:74023
10 ANU FRANCIS,
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
B&S DIVISION, ANGAMALY, PIN - 680308
11 SAJEEV A.P.,
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (C),
CIVIL CIRCLE, PALLOM, PIN - 686007
12 BAIJU DOMINIC,
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, FINANCIAL INSPECTION
WING, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
13 G. MINI,
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (C), CIVIL CIRCLE,
KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN - 686691
14 BIJU MARKOSE,
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
DAM SAFETY SUB DIVISION - I,
IDAMALAYAR, PIN - 686681
15 K.C.THOMAS,
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (C),
TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, POOVANTHURUTHU P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686012
16 K.C.SEENA,
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MFI SUB DIVISION,
B&S DIVISION, ANGAMALY, PIN - 683572
17 ZAIRA BEEGUM T.S.,
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PEECHI SMALL HE
PROJECT, CIVIL SUB DIVISION,
PEECHI, THRISSUR, PIN - 680653
18 K.SUJA,
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (C),
TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001
19 B.MANJU,
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
CIVIL CIRCLE, MEENCUT, PIN - 685565
WA NO.1660/2023 4
2025:KER:74023
20 JOMY M.N.,
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PALLIVASAL EXTENSION SCHEME,
DIVISION NO.II, MEENCUT, IDUKKI - 685565
21 VINOD V.,
ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CHIMONY SHEP, KSEB,
CHIMMONY DAM P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680304
22 K.SIVARAMAN,
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (C), BDPP BRAHMAPURAM,
BRAHMAPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682303
23 NANDAKUMAR S.,
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
RESEARCH AND DAM SAFETY SUB DIVISION,
NO.3/2, KALLARKUTTY, PIN - 685562
24 BIJU LATHEEF,
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF
ENGINEER (C) NORTH, KSEB, GANDHI ROAD,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673004
BY ADVS.
SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, R1 & R3
SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD, R4, 6 TO 8, 11, 12, 15 TO
17, 19, 24
SRI.S.RAMESH BABU (SR.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.10.2025, THE COURT ON 08.10.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO.1660/2023 5
2025:KER:74023
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 08th day of October, 2025 Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 13.02.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.35681 of 2009. Appellant was the petitioner in the said W.P.(C). Respondents were the respondents therein.
2. The Writ Petition was filed inter alia seeking to quash Ext.P8 order dated 10.11.2009 whereby the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) held that passing of Departmental Test namely that of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 is not applicable to the Civil Engineering wing of the Engineers of the Board. Appellant contended that he entered the service of the Board as Assistant Engineer on 05.07.1996 in the 40% direct recruitment quota from open market. At the time of appointment, he possessed B.Tech Degree in Civil Engineering and also M.Tech in Civil Engineering. He had also passed Account Test (Lower) and Departmental Test for executive staff of KSEB conducted by the Kerala Public Service WA NO.1660/2023 6 2025:KER:74023 Commission (KPSC). He contended that he had become qualified to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) with effect from 02.07.2003 on the date on which he acquired the test qualification. His grievance is that in spite of the fact that he became fully qualified as per the Special Rules for being promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil), no steps were taken by the Board for giving him due promotion. In the earlier Writ Petition that was filed by him, the Board had taken the stand that Junior Engineers should pass all three papers of the Departmental Test for executive staff and Account Test for the purpose of earning their increment and for promotion. By Ext.P5 judgment, this Court had directed the Board to conduct promotions in accordance with seniority from the qualified hands. Thereafter Ext.P8 order dated 10.11.2009 was passed by the Secretary of the Board, whereby it was stated that additional requirement of pass in Electricity (Supply) Act in the case of Civil Branch of the Board was not forwarded to the Government by the Board nor accepted by the Government. Therefore, the Board is not authorised to change the promotion criteria accepted by the Government. Accordingly, it was decided by the Board that the WA NO.1660/2023 7 2025:KER:74023 criteria accepted by the Government would be followed and continued for the purpose of promotion in the civil wing of the KSEB. Contending that Ext.P8 order is arbitrary and against the Rules applicable and had been made with the intention to disobey Ext.P5 judgment, the Writ Petition was filed seeking the following reliefs :
"a) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P8 and issue a writ of certiorari quashing the same ;
b) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring that a pass in Electricity (Supply) Act is a mandatory pre-requisite for passing the Departmental Test for the executive staff of Kerala State Electricity Board.
c) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring that a pass in the departmental test for the executive staff of KSEBoard is a mandatory pre-requisite for declaration of probation in the entry cadre, earning increments and for further promotions from the entry cadre ;
d) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to implement the judgment dated 30th January, 2009 in W.P.(C) No.15098 of 2005 untrammelled by Exhibit P8 ; and
e) issue such other appropriate writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and fit under the circumstances of the case."
3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the W.P.(C) holding that the Board Order No.EBII-15145/70 dated 04.08.1971 cannot be construed to be a Regulation made under Section 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 laying down the qualification for promotion. It is neither an order adopting any Rules or Government Orders nor a Regulation made by the Board under Section 79(c) of WA NO.1660/2023 8 2025:KER:74023 the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Holding that in Ext.P8, the Board has stated that it will continue to follow the criteria followed by the Government for promotion in the civil wing of the Board and the requirement of test qualification in Electricity (Supply) Act was not accepted by the Government and taking note of the said fact, this Court had in the judgment dated 20.11.2009 in W.P.(C) No.29563 of 2009 closed the Writ Petition observing that the Board Order dated 10.11.2009 (Ext.P8) clearly states that the Board will not be insisting that the Engineers of the civil wing should pass the test in the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and there is no cause of action for the petitioners therein to apprehend that they will be reverted for want of pass in the test. Holding that in Ext.P5 judgment, this Court had held that the quota set apart for Graduate Engineers will come to 123 and therefore, 123 posts have to be filled up by qualified Graduate Engineers in the feeder category with reference to the date of occurrence of vacancies, the Writ Petition and the challenge against Ext.P8 was dismissed. It was held that the appellant is not entitled for any declaration as prayed for in the Writ Petition. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, this WA NO.1660/2023 9 2025:KER:74023 Writ Appeal is filed.
4. Heard Sri.Santhosh Mathew, Senior Advocate for the appellant, Sri.M.Krishna Prasad, Advocate for the party respondents and Sri.B.Premod, Standing Counsel for the KSEB.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge had erred in dismissing the Writ Petition and had failed to consider the contentions specifically put forth by the appellant. It is contended by him that the findings in the impugned judgment are against the Board Order issued by the KSEB in terms of Section 79 (c) and are not sustainable in law. It is contended that the Board is constituted as per the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1948 and by virtue of Section 79 (c) the Act, the Board is empowered to make regulations regarding the duties, salaries and other conditions of service of its officers and servants. The Regulations made by the Board need not be submitted before the State Government for approval and also the notifications of these regulations in official gazette is insisted only with effect from 15.03.1984. Hence there was no requirement to publish the regulations made till 15.03.1984 in the official gazette. The learned WA NO.1660/2023 10 2025:KER:74023 Senior Counsel contended that the Board Order dated 04.08.1971 insists Departmental Test qualifications for promotions from entry cadre to next higher cadre to those in the Board service in both executive and ministerial branches. Board frames Rules for its service through Board Orders and the orders of the Board are treated as Regulations as the Board is competent to do it by virtue of Section 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. It is contended that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the Board Order dated 04.08.1971 cannot be pressed into service for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer is not correct and the same is liable to be interfered with. The learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the dictum laid down in N.Suresh Nathan and another v. Union of India and others (1992 Supp (1) SCC 584) and it is contended that if the past practice is based on one of the possible constructions which can be made of the rules, then upsetting the same now would not be appropriate. The learned counsel thus prayed that the judgment of the learned Single Judge may be set aside.
6. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the party WA NO.1660/2023 11 2025:KER:74023 respondents would submit that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. He contends that the short question to be considered is whether in order to be promoted from Assistant Engineer (Civil) to Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil), it is necessary to pass the Departmental Test prescribed for the executive staff of the Board. According to the appellant, there are three papers in the Departmental Test, namely, (a) account test (b) Kerala PWD test and (c) Electricity (Supply) Act. The appellant had contended that the party respondents are not test qualified so far as they have not passed the paper on Electricity (Supply) Act. They challenge Ext.P8 order of the Board whereby the Board had ordered that passing Electricity (Supply) Act is not mandatory for the Civil Engineering employees of the Board. The orders promoting the party respondents as Assistant Executive Engineers had not been challenged either in the present Writ Petition or in earlier round of litigations. It is also contended that the appellant has no locus to challenge the orders of promotion of the party respondents in so far as they had been promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer prior to the date of acquisition of qualification by the WA NO.1660/2023 12 2025:KER:74023 appellant. Ext.P8 order therefore is not liable to be challenged at the instance of the appellant vis a vis, the party respondents. As regards the contention put forth by the appellant based on the dictum laid down in N.Suresh Nathan (supra), it is contended that the doctrine of past practice has no application in the present context since there is no two different interpretation of the same Rule. The question that has been put up is not the interpretation of any Board Order, but as to the very existence or validity of the Board Order. Thus the doctrine of past practice has no applicability at all. It is further contended that in so far as the promotion orders of the party respondents are not under challenge, the appellant is not entitled to any relief as against the party respondents. No writ of certiorari is liable to be issued against the respondents as the appellant is not entitled to stake any claim in respect of vacancies that have arisen prior to his getting qualified. The appellant cannot be permitted to achieve indirectly what he cannot achieve directly. Since no writ of certiorari could be issued so as to upset the promotion granted to the party respondents, a writ of declaration ought not to be granted so as to achieve the same result. Reliance WA NO.1660/2023 13 2025:KER:74023 is placed on the dictum laid down in C.S. Sarma Kumar v. KSEB and others [Judgment dated 09.12.2015 in W.A.No.2611 of 2015] to substantiate the 1965 Rules would apply. In the said case, a Division Bench of this Court had affirmed the finding of the learned Single Judge that when the appointment was on the basis of 1965 Rules, it is not open for him to contend that 1965 Rules had not been adopted by the Board. As regards the doctrine of past practice, the learned counsel further relied on the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and another v. Senior Higher Secondary School, Lachhmangarh and others [(2005) 10 SCC 346] and Shailendra Dania and others v. S.P. Dubey and others [(2007) 5 SCC 535]. The learned counsel thus sought the dismissal of the Writ Appeal.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the Board defended the judgment of the learned Single Judge and submitted that in view of the judgments that had been earlier rendered and the relevant Rules the Board had considered the matter and the additional qualification of passing Electricity (Supply) Act in civil branch at KSEB has not been taken up with the Government for approval. Hence the Board WA NO.1660/2023 14 2025:KER:74023 had felt that it would not be appropriate to insist pass in Electricity (Supply) Act prescribed in the Board Order dated 04.08.1971. Hence the Board decided that the criteria accepted by the Government will be followed and continued to be followed for promotion in the civil wing of KSEB. It is pursuant thereto that the orders were issued vide Ext.P8 order dated 10.11.2009. It was thus contended that the prayer to quash Ext.P8 order is unsustainable and that the Writ Petition was correctly dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
8. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered the contentions put forth. The respective precedents relied on by the parties have been studied. We note that the principal question involved is the necessity to pass the test in Electricity (Supply) Act as a mandatory pre-requisite for passing the Departmental Test for the executive staff of the Board and whether Ext.P8 to the extent it does not insist on the said test could be termed as illegal and is fit to be quashed. We note that the learned Single Judge had, after a detailed consideration of the relevant Board Orders as well as Section 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act WA NO.1660/2023 15 2025:KER:74023 taken note that the Kerala Engineering Service Rules, 1959 adopted by the Board vide BO No.A.1/588/60 dated 30.03.1962 did not contain any requirement of test qualification for promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil). Later, the Government framed the Kerala Engineering Service (General Branch) Rules in 1965 [subsequently known as the Kerala Engineering Service (Civil and General Branch), Rules] to which amendments were made in 1966 and 1977 inserting requirements of passing of tests. While the 1962 Board Order dated 30.03.1962 adopted the Kerala Engineering Service Rules, 1959, there was nothing to show that the amendments of 1966 and 1977 regarding test requirements had been adopted by the Board for its employees. We note that the learned Single Judge after noting that neither the Kerala Engineering Service Rules nor the Government Orders require pass in all the three papers of Departmental Test for executive staff for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, had proceeded to examine whether there was any Board Order or Regulation that mandated such a requirement. The learned Judge thus scrutinised the Board Order dated 04.08.1971 which had been WA NO.1660/2023 16 2025:KER:74023 heavily relied on by the appellant and though it was noted that the Board Order presupposes the existence of a Rule requiring pass in all the three papers of Departmental Test for executive staff, the Rules did not provide that the Assistant Engineers should pass all the three papers of the Departmental Test for executive staff. It was also concluded that the said Board Order of 1971 cannot be construed to be a Regulation made under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 laying down the qualification for promotion. Though serious objection is taken to the said conclusion of the learned Single Judge, determine the same to be factually and legally incorrect, we do not find any reason to hold so. We find merit in the finding of the learned Single Judge that the relevant Board Order is neither an order adopting any Rules or Government Orders nor a Regulation made by the Board under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The finding that the 1979 Board Order, whether gazetted or not, cannot be constituted as a notification in terms of Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act and that the same cannot be pressed into service for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, as explained WA NO.1660/2023 17 2025:KER:74023 in detail by the learned Single Judge, is valid and correct. Further the learned Single Judge has also taken note that the Ext.P8 Board Order had been subjected to consideration by this Court in its judgment dated 20.11.2009 in W.P.(C) No.29563 of 2009 filed by the additional respondents in W.P.(C) No.35681 of 2009 who had apprehended reversion on the basis of not passing the Departmental Test in the Electricity (Supply) Act. This Court had closed the said Writ Petition observing that from the Board Order dated 10.11.2009, it is clear that the Board will not be insisting that the Engineers of the civil wing should pass test in Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and that there is no cause of action for the petitioners therein to apprehend that they will be reverted for want of pass in the test. As regards Ext.P5 judgment is concerned, the learned Single Judge concluded that this Court had not considered the question of qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in the Board or as to whether passing the Departmental Test in Electricity (Supply) Act is a prerequisite for promotion. The said finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge has also not been controverted by the appellant. Accordingly, we WA NO.1660/2023 18 2025:KER:74023 do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge.
The Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE csl WA NO.1660/2023 19 2025:KER:74023 APPENDIX OF WA 1660/2023 APPELLANT ANNEXURES Annexure A1 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF ONE MR.HARIKRISHNAN K S DATED 18-11-2015, AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BOARD