Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(d) On 20.05.2009, the petitioner was deputed to KREDL as an Assistant Technical Officer, which is equivalent to the cadre of Assistant Engineer. On 10.03.2011, KPCL published a seniority list.

(e) KPCL addressed a letter to the petitioner informing her that though the period of deputation of one year in KREDL had expired on 02.06.2010, she had not got herself relieved and reported back to duty at the KPCL. It was also informed to her that there was an urgent requirement of services of the Engineers in the KPCL and that she should, therefore, ensure that she got herself relieved from KREDL and report back to KPCL.

59. It is also to be noticed here that the petitioner was not even in the service of KREDL when respondents 4 to 8 had been absorbed as permanent employees in the year 2006 (01.07.2004 to 03.10.2006). In other words, when the petitioner was still working at the KPCL, the services of respondents 4 to 8 had been absorbed into KREDL and the petitioner, being an employee of the KPCL, cannot obviously be entitled to contend that the absorption of respondents 4 to 8 was illegal while she was still admittedly working at the KPCL. It is also to be kept in mind that the petitioner had voluntarily sought deputation to KREDL and despite being notified in the year 2011 that the KPCL was not inclined to continue this deputation, the petitioner preferred to be on deputation at the KREDL.

62. The argument of the petitioner that the KREDL and the Government have committed a serious error in permitting the amendment of C&R Rules and ratifying the absorption of respondents 4, 7 and 8 as one-time measure, cannot also be accepted.

- 46 -

NC: 2023:KHC:41723

63. The educational requirement of an employee of the KREDL would lie within the exclusive domain of the KREDL. An employee of KREDL cannot really have a right to question the prescription of an educational qualification by the employer.

- 47 -

NC: 2023:KHC:41723 Government for ratification of the absorption that it had made. The KREDL was essentially seeking to cure the defect in the absorption and in order to ensure that this was done, a decision was taken to amend the C&R Rules and also to seek ratification of the absorptions made by them. The Government, which is the ultimate authority insofar as the KREDL is concerned, has concurred with the view taken by the KREDL and has granted its concurrence, both for the amendment of the C&R Rules and also for ratifying the absorptions made by KREDL.