S. SAJEEV Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are diploma holders in Electrical Engineering and working as Sub Engineers (Electrical) in the service of Kerala State Electricity Board, have come up before this Court with this writ petition for the following reliefs;

(2.) THE petitioners allege that they are qualified to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). The petitioners point out that the qualification and method of appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), which was formerly Junior Engineer (Electrical), have been prescribed by the Board as per Exts.P3 to P5 orders. As per the said orders, the method of appointment to the post is by direct recruitment and also by promotion from the category of Sub Engineer (Electrical) in the ratio 1:1. The Rules also provide that the ratio of 3:2 is to be maintained among the diploma holder Sub Engineers and certificate holder Sub Engineers while effecting promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). The note appended to Ext.P5 Rules provide that the ratio prescribed between direct recruits and promotees will be maintained on the total cadre strength of Junior Engineer (Electrical) and not on arising vacancies. According to the petitioners, the very object of prescribing a quota for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) from among the diploma holders and certificate holders, who get promoted/directly recruited to the post of Sub Engineer (Electrical), is to improve the efficiency of the service by giving preference to the diploma holders in the matter of claiming promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). According to the petitioners, it is a classification based on their educational qualification in favour of diploma holders. They allege that the quota enables the diploma holders Sub Engineers to claim promotion in preference to their senior certificate holders Sub Engineers so as to achieve the object. According to them, the note added to the Rules as per Ext.P5 order that the ratio will be maintained based on the total cadre strength, is intended only to be applied between direct recruits and promotees and the said note was never intended to be applied among the diploma holders and certificate holders, who get promoted and directly recruited to the feeder category viz., Sub Engineer (Electrical) from same sources as otherwise, the same would enable a junior certificate holder to claim promotion over a senior diploma holder. They would further point out that the prescription in the note, in the circumstances, was never applied also by the Board till 2003 among the certificate holders and diploma holders. However, after 2003, at the instance of certificate holders, the Board misinterpreted the said note and took the stand that the ratio prescribed for promotion among the promotee certificate holders and promotee diploma holders is also to be maintained on the basis of the cadre strength, and consequently, started filling up vacancies arose in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on account of the retirement/promotion of certificate holders by certificate holders; it is alleged. The petitioners further point out that most of the certificate holders who get promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) are certificate holders, who are recruited as Electricity Worker, Lineman etc.; and as such, most of them retire as Assistant Engineer (Electrical). Consequently, when ratio is maintained on the basis of the cadre strength, vacancies due to them arose in a faster pace. The petitioners point out that when the Board started filling up the vacancies of the certificate holders by certificate holders on account of the misapplication of the note attached to the Rules as per Ext.P5, sufficient number of certificate holders were not available to be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the category of Sub Engineer (Electrical) without violating the seniority of diploma holders. Consequently, the Board started promoting junior certificate holders to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in preference to senior diploma holders in the guise of complying with the provisions contained in the note. According to the petitioners, the interpretation given to the note referred to above by the Board is misconceived and defeating the very purpose of the prescription of the quota among diploma holders Sub Engineers and certificate holders Sub Engineers. Therefore, the petitioners are seeking a declaration that the provision in the note attached to Ext.P5 Rules prescribing the qualification and method of appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) to the effect that the ratio provided therein will be maintained on the total cadre strength, is applicable only between direct recruits and promotees and the same is not intended to be and cannot be applied between diploma holders and certificate holders while effecting promotion.

(3.) THE 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit contending as follows;