P.M. SWOPNA Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this writ petition are currently working as Engineers in Kerala State Electricity Board. The selection to the post of Sub Engineer invited as per Ext. P1 notification by the Kerala Public Service Commission, the petitioners applied for the same. The qualification prescribed in the above notification is Diploma in Electrical Engineering. The petitioners are holders of B.Tech Degree in Electrical Engineering. On perusal of the applications, it was found that the petitioners were not eligible to apply for the post as qualification one which prescribed for the post, was Diploma in Electrical Engineering.

(2.) THOUGH the petitioners are having higher qualification, the petitioners applications were rejected. The petitioners thereafter challenged the action of the Public Service Commission before this Court. This Court allowed the petitioners to take part in the selection process and the petitioners were included in Ext. P2 rank list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission based on the interim orders passed in the original petitions. The Division Bench of this Court ultimately negatived the claim of the petitioners. The petitioners thereupon challenged the judgment of the Division Bench before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP in which Ext. P3 judgment was rendered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the petitioners claim and petitioners were directed to be appointed to the post in the vacancies which are available within three months from the date of order. In Ext. P3 judgment it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:

(3.) THE petitioners in this writ petition assail the seniority assigned to the various candidates. According to the petitioners, they are placed above ranks of the persons who were appointed before 11.02.2002 in Ext. P4. However they submit in the gradation list of Sub Engineers (Electrical) prepared as on 01.01.2004 they are placed lower to the persons based on the ranking in Ext. P4. Gradation list is produced as Ext. P7 which is prepared based on advice list of Public Service Commission. It is further submitted that in the gradation list those have been advised earlier than petitioners though juniors in ranking are figured as seniors. In short their argument is that they were duly qualified to be appointed to the post of sub engineer and it is due to adamant stand post of Public Service Commission delay in advising them occurred. The petitioners challenge seniority assigned to them in Ext. P7 gradation list.