JOHN VARGHESE Vs. SUDHAKARAN K.A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Third parties had preferred this appeal after seeking leave of Court. They challenge judgment dated 19/12/2018 in WP(C) No.37101/2016. The petitioners in the writ petition are respondents 1 to 3 herein. They approached the learned Single Judge challenging the attempt on the part of the Board to fill up vacancies which arose after the date of Ext.P3, i.e., amendment to the Special Rules, from among the candidates selected pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 29/11/2011.

(2.) Petitioners were working as Sub Engineers (Electrical) in the Kerala State Electricity Board. 10% of vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) is reserved for Sub Engineers (Electrical) having Engineering Degree. The selection is being conducted by way of direct recruitment through the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC). The upper age limit of candidates in the cadre of Sub Engineers (Electrical) for applying to the post of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) under the 10% quota was fixed at 45 years. 10 vacancies had arisen in the cadre of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) in the aforesaid 10% quota which was reported to the KPSC and they issued Ext.P1 notification dated 29/11/2011. The last date of submission of applications was 4/1/2012. Written test was conducted on 15/11/2014, interview was conducted on 31/8/2016 and a ranked list came to be published on 30/12/2016. In the meantime, the Special Rules were amended as per Ext.P3 dated 5/6/2012, thereby the maximum age for appointment by transfer under the aforesaid 10% quota was fixed at 50 years instead of 45 years. The writ petition came to be filed on 17/11/2016 prior to the preparation of the ranked list. It was contended that once the Special Rules have been amended increasing the age limit up to 50, those vacancies which had arisen after 5/6/2012 have to be re-notified and a fresh rank list is to be prepared. They also contended that they were not eligible to apply as per Ext.P1 notification and hence they did not apply. They contended that 58 vacancies of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) in the 10% quota had arisen after the amendment to Special Rules and therefore only vacancies that had arisen prior to 5/6/2012 could be filled up from the said ranked list.

(3.) Counter affidavit was filed by the 1 st respondent inter alia stating that petitioners were persons who were eligible to apply as per the age criteria on the last date of application. But they did not apply. That apart, Ext.P3 order had been issued as early as on 5/6/2012, but the challenge is made only on 17/11/2016 after a long gap of four years. It is stated that if they have been qualified in terms of both upper age limit and educational qualifications, they could have applied pursuant to Ext.P1 notification.