Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The Electricity Board and the Chairman, arrayed as first and second respondents opposed the writ petition contending that the writ petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the ratio and the Board proceedings. The respondents 1 and 2 also denied the applicability of the ratio 3:1 for Technical Assistants. No ratio is adopted for filling up the post of Technical Assistants, which would be filled by open competition from Diploma Holders and selection from Diploma Holders in lower regular work establishment. The respondents also relied upon the settlement executed by the Board and the employees and the ratio of 3:1 implemented in Public Works Department and Highways Department cannot be implemented in the Board for all cadres. It is for the Board to decide on the ratio in the interest of exigency of the work. Because of their level of entry, most of the Diploma Holders retire as Junior Engineer/Electrical Grade - I/Assistant Executive Engineer whereas the Engineer have chances of going upto the level of Chief Manager/Member of the Board. Relying upon the Apex Court judgment in S.L.P.Nos. 5205-5328 of 1996, it was contended that the Apprentices cannot claim any exclusive right and the preference can be given if only other material aspects are equal and hence, sought the dismissal of the writ petition.