KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. M.C. JACOB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent filed W.P.(C).No.4873/2010 claiming that his promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer under the appellants should be given at least with effect from the date on which his juniors in the revised seniority list were given. This claim was accepted by the learned Single Judge, who, on facts found that one Sri.Rajayyan, a junior to the respondent in the revised seniority list, was given promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer earlier to him and therefore should be given promotion at least with effect from the date, on which, his immediate junior in the seniority list is given promotion. This judgment is challenged by the appellants before us.

(2.) READING of the judgment shows that the learned Judge found that the junior to the appellant, Sri.Rajayyan was given promotion earlier to him and that therefore the respondent should be given promotion at least on a par with him. However, insofar as the promotion ordered to Sri.Rajayyan is concerned, in the writ appeal the appellants have stated thus in Ground 'C'.

(3.) IN this litigation, the claim of the respondent was for parity with Sri.Rajayyan and it is accepted by the learned Single Judge. It is evident that the promotion of Sri.Rajayyan itself was an illegal one and such a confession made by the appellants stands undisputed. In such circumstances, the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the respondent is entitled to be treated on par with Sri.Rajayyan and promotion should be given to the respondent with effect from the date on which the person at serial No. 349 in the revised seniority list, his immediate junior, is given promotion is unsustainable. However, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has a case that if the ratio 3:1 was properly implemented, he would have got promotion earlier. The appellants also accept that promotion was to be effected in 3:1 ratio between Degree and Diploma holders to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. If so, the appellants are duty bound to maintain the ratio as provided in the Rules. Therefore, we clarify that, notwithstanding this judgment, if the respondent was entitled to any earlier promotion on the proper implementation of the ratio, that will be considered by the appellants. We therefore set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.