Udayakumar P.K. vs Kerala State Electricity Board Represented

A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—This writ petition is filed for a direction to make necessary corrections in Ext. P18 notification inviting applications for the post of Sub Engineer (Electrical) under 10% quota reserved for in-service candidates set apart for diploma holders, excluding certificate holders from the category of eligible persons to apply for the post. It is prayed to quash clauses 7(2)(b) and (c) of Ext. P18 notification allowing the certificate holders to partake in the selection process.

The petitioners are presently working as Overseers in electrical sections of various offices of the respondent Electricity Board. The petitioners are diploma holders and they allege that they are eligible and legally entitled to be appointed to the post of Sub Engineers under 10% quota earmarked for the overseers of the Board who have Diploma in Engineering. The respondent Board as per Ext. P1 order dated 1.11.1971 amended the method of appointment to the post of Ist Grade Overseer prescribed in Ext. P4 in the year 1967. As per the amended order, the appointment to the post of Ist Grade Overseer (now re-designated as Sub Engineer) will be in the ratio of 1:1 between direct recruitment and promotions.

The petitioners allege that in the respondent Board, Sub Engineers are the persons entrusted with the supervision work and control over the high tension lines and this position has been affirmed as per Ext. P12 circular dated 18.9.2004. In Ext. P12, it is stated that the qualification of the persons who are eligible to supervise and to be engaged in high tension and extra high tension are diploma holders and B.Tech. holders. It is further alleged that as per Ext. P13 letter dated 26.5.2011, it was informed by the Central Electricity Authority that in the State of Kerala unqualified hands are dealing with high tension and extra high tension which is against the rules. It is further alleged that the PSC as per Ext. P17 informed that the documents which prescribes the qualification for appointment under 10% quota from among board employees are not available with the said office. According to the petitioner, it is the basic document which prescribes qualification to be relied on while issuing the notification under 10% quota.

The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent Public Service Commission has now issued Ext. P18 notification inviting applications from the certificate holders too besides the diploma holders to the post of Sub Engineers under the 10% quota in total violation of Ext. P1 which was affirmed by two Division Benches of this Court as could be seen from Exts. P7 and P8. The petitioners allege that the said action is illegal and the wilful silence and inaction on the part of the respondent Board in not pursuing the PSC to correct the mistake and effect selection process as per Ext. P1 would adversely affect the protection granted by the Board to the persons like the petitioners.

The third respondent PSC filed a counter affidavit contending that Ext. P18 notification was prepared as per Ext. P4 Board order dated 28.12.1967. Ext. P5 Board order dated 23.1.1981 deals with the recruitment method and qualification prescribed for recruitment by promotion in 60% vacancies by the Board. It is further stated that Ext. P4 Board order dated 28.12.1967 deals with the qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment and states that the qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment is also considered for 10% departmental quota recruitment. Therefore, it was contended that certificate holders also can apply for the post. The Public Service Commission maintained the stand that the notification was issued by the Commission in accordance with the Board orders prescribed for the method of appointment and qualification.

I have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Board and the learned standing counsel for the PSC.

The grievance of the petitioners is that Ext. P18 notification allows certificate holders to partake in the selection process to the post of Sub Engineer, Electrical under 10% quota reserved for in service candidates set apart for diploma holders. Ext. P3 is the proforma for reporting 67 vacancies for appointment to the post of Sub Engineer (Electrical) as on 3.11.2009 by the Chief Engineer (HRM) of the Board.

It is crucial to note that in that proforma the most relevant board order i.e. Ext. P1, regarding the recruitment to the post was not noticed. Therefore, the fact that the Diploma in Electrical Engineering or Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering or Diploma in Electronics Engineering alone are the qualification prescribed by the KSE Board for direct recruitment to both open vacancies and 10% in service vacancies was not brought to the notice of the PSC. According to the petitioners, a mistake occurred in Ext. P18 by giving a wrong interpretation to Ext. P5 board order dated 23.1.1981. It could be seen from Ext. P1 that 1:1 ratio for direct recruitment and promotion to the post of Sub Engineer (Electrical) was prescribed by the Board. Out of the 50% vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment, 10% is for direct recruitment from in service candidates possessing diploma qualification. Thereafter the Board issued Board order dated 16.8.1973 prescribing the revised qualifications shown in Annexure to that order to regulate promotions to the category of Ist Grade Overseer (Electrical) to those who have been appointed to the Board service on or after 15.8.1971. It is relevant to note that it was after Ext. P29, Ext. P19 order dated 18.4.1975 was issued stating that for direct recruitment to the 10% quota to in-service candidates, 3 years service in the next lower category, viz. IInd Grade Overseer (Electrical) including Draftsman was prescribed. After that Ext. P5 Board order dated 23.1.1981 was issued amending the method of appointment to the post of Ist Grade Overseer (Electrical) and also making changes in Ext. P29. By the issuance of Ext. P5, the ratio for direct recruitment was reduced from 50% to 40% and it was specified that 40% is reserved for direct recruitment and 10% is reserved for in-service candidates. The qualification shown in the Annexure contained in Ext. P29 was also changed by Ext. P5. Ext. P5 qualification refers to promotion which is dealt within Ext. P29. Therefore, after the issuance of Ext. P5 also, the qualification for direct recruitment continued to be Diploma in Electrical Engineering. However, those who have completed three years service either in the category of IInd Grade Draftsman or in the category of IInd grade draftsman alone were eligible. Thereafter Ext. P6 Board order was issued prescribing Diploma in Electronics and Communication also as a qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Sub Engineer (Electrical). Thereafter on 10.1.2001, Ext. P30 Board order was issued prescribing diploma in electrical engineering also as an alternate qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Sub Engineer (Electrical). In Ext. P31 Note given by the Chief Engineer of the respondent Board in September 2012, it is clarified that 10% quota for in service candidates are meant for diploma holders only. Further, the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment of 10% was 305 and the number of persons working was only 90. That means 215 vacancies were available at that time in the quota reserved for direct recruitment or in-service candidates. Thereafter the Chief Engineer (HRM), by Ext. P32 communication dated 29.1.2014 addressing the Secretary of the Kerala Public Service Commission, reported 180 vacancies in the 10% quota of in-service candidates. There, the qualification shown are SSLC and Diploma in Electrical Engineering or Diploma in Electronics and Communication and Diploma in Electronics. From the proforma for reporting the vacancies contained therein, it could be seen that Ext. P1 Board order which the board failed to bring to the notice of the PSC earlier was specifically mentioned. More over, Ext. P5 Board order which resulted in giving wrong interpretation regarding the qualifications for direct recruitment was excluded in that communication. Therefore, Ext. P32 clarifies the position that in the earlier communication reporting the vacancies of 10% quota of in-service candidates, there occurred a mistake in failing to mention Ext. P1 and by mentioning Ext. P5 and giving it a wrong interpretation, Ext. P18 notification happened to be issued mistakenly. That mistake is now required to be corrected in Ext. P32. The aforesaid mistake was requested to be corrected by the Chief Engineer (HRM) as early as on 11.4.2012 through Ext. P26 Note which reads as follows:

"In the above circumstance, the matter may be examined and appropriate direction may be given to Kerala public Service Commission to get the notification rectified based on the Board order dated 1.11.1971. Please treat the matter as most urgent as the last date for accepting the application vide the above Kerala Public Service Commission Notification has already elapsed."

But the Secretary of the KSE Board has not given any necessary information to the PSC which lead to the present complications. Therefore, Ext. P18 notification requires a rectification and without rectification of Ext. P18, as requested by the Chief Engineer in Ext. 26 in terms of Ext. P32, the PSC shall not be allowed to proceed with further selection to the post of Sub Engineer (Electrical) in 10% quota.

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Ext. P18 is quashed to the extent of allowing the certificate holders to partake in the selection to the post of Sub Engineer (Electrical) under 10% quota set apart for diploma holders in terms of Ext. P1 board order.

The respondent PSC is directed to issue modified notification as requested in Ext. P26 and in terms of Ext. P32 and shall proceed with the further selection to the post of Sub Engineer (Electrical) in 10% quota in accordance with the corrected notification.