B.Premanand vs Mohan Koikal on 24 May, 2006
This judgment is distinguishable on facts. Learned counsel then relied on a
Division Bench decision of this Court in K.V.John v. Kerala State
Electricity Board, Kerala (1979 [2] SLR 641). The facts of the case
aforesaid were that the appellants were appointed as 1st Grade Overseers
in the Kerala State Electricity Board some time in 1968. By Exhibit P1
proceedings of the Board dated 9.12.1970, it was notified after
consideration of the question of reserving a certain percentage of vacancies
of Junior Engineers for appointment by direct recruitment, that in making
appointment to the said post, 40% of the vacancies will be from open
market and 10% by direct recruitment, of Engineering Graduates in the
service of the Board as Overseers, Clerks etc. On2.2.1971, the Public
Service Commission invited applications for recruitment to the post of Junior
Engineers in the Electrical Department consistent with the terms of Exhibit
P1 proceedings. A clarificatory notification was issued on 22.3.1971. The
appellants applied in pursuance of these notifications. They were
interviewed by the Public Service Commission on 29.5.1971 and selected
for the post of Junior Engineers. They were advised by the Public Service
Commission on 4.6.1971 and appointed by Exhibit P2 dated 17.6.1971.
W.A.No.1774 of 2003 - 19 -
Exhibit P2 order expressly recited that the appointment was in pursuance of
the advice dated 4.6.1971. Three open market candidates were advised on
7.7.1971, 11.10.1971 and 23.10.1971. Respondents 4 and 5 were included
in the advice list dated 11.10.1971. The Commission thereafter prepared a
combined seniority list, Exhibit P3, of departmental and open market
candidates, in which the petitioners were placed below the respondents.
The inter se seniority list was prepared by following 1:4 ratio between the
departmental candidates and open market candidates. The Electricity Board
had by its proceedings dated 25.9.1978 ordered that the existing ratio of
Junior Engineer (Electrical) and 1st Grade Overseer (Electrical) under the
Board between departmental and open market candidates was 1:4 and that
accordingly the first candidate from the advice list of departmental
candidates would be ranked first, thereafter four candidates will be ranked
respectively from among those from the open market in the order of
seniority in the advice list and then the next candidate from the
departmental quota and the process will continue till the quota of the
departmental candidates is exhausted. In Exhibit P3 the principle invoked at
that time was followed. The appellants who were aggrieved by the seniority
W.A.No.1774 of 2003 - 20 -
list had approached the Public Service Commission stating that the same
was contrary to Rule 27(c) of the KS & SSR. The Division Bench after
reproducing Rule 27(c) observed that: