This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 rank list published by the 3rd respondent Commission, with respect to selection conducted to the post of Sub Engineer, (Electrical) in the 1st respondent Board, to the extent it included names of respondents 5 to 29 who were not Diploma holders at the time when Ext.P4 notification was published. The petitioners are also seeking consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to prepare a fresh list by excluding names of those respondents from list No.II of Ext.P5 and also to cancel the advise issued to those respondents.
2. The petitioners were working in the cadre of Overseer Grade-II and Meter Reader in the 1st respondent Board and they were eligible to be appointed to the post of Sub Engineer based on the quota reserved for departmental candidates by virtue of the relevant recruitment Rules in force during the time of selection. Exhibit P1 is the Rules prescribing qualification and method of appointment to the post of Overseer Grade-I (Electrical) notified by the Board on 28-12-1967. Exhibit P1 prescribes the method of appointment by way of direct recruitment and by promotion from Overseer Grade-II in the ratio 1 : 1. It is evident from Ext.P2 that the method of appointment was changed through order issued by the 1st respondent Board on 01-11- 1971. It is mentioned therein that in making appointment to the post of Overseer Grade-I by direct recruitment of Diploma holders in Electrical Engineering, 40% vacancy shall be filled up by direct recruitment of qualified candidates from the open market and 10% of the vacancies shall be filled by direct recruitment of Diploma holders in Electrical Engineering who are in the service of the Board as II-Grade Overseers. According to the petitioner a further amendment with respect to the ratio was prescribed through Ext.P3 order of the Board in which the ratio between direct recruitees and promotion is re-fixed as 40 :
60. Further with respect to 40% direct recruitment a further reservation is made to the effect that 10% shall be appointed from qualified Board employees. Contention of the petitioners is that, with respect to the 10% prescribed under Ext.P3, selection of whom shall be made from among the Board employees, the qualification prescribed is Diploma in Electrical Engineering. Since respondents 5 to 29 does not possess Diploma, as revealed from Ext.P7 reply obtained under the Right to Information Act, it is contended that inclusion of their names in the rank list is illegal and is liable to be struck down.
3. Standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Commission submitted that the impugned selection was conducted on the basis of Ext.P4 notification published in the year 2003. The notification specifically prescribed the qualification for appointment to the post of Sub Engineer, both general qualifications as well as the technical qualifications. The technical qualification prescribed includes a Technical School Certificate holder in Electrical Engineering with 5 years service under the KSEB. In Ext.P4 notification it was specifically mentioned that the appointment by direct recruitment will be at 30% : 10% ratio (within the 40% quota earmarked for direct recruitment) between direct recruitees from the open market and from among qualified Board employees as laid down in Ext.P3. It is contended that since Ext.P3 prescribes that 10% quota earmarked for appointment through direct recruitment is from among qualified Board employees the qualification of Technical School Certificate is a sufficient qualification for the Board employees who fulfills other criteria. According to the Standing counsel all the party respondents 5 to 29 are selected on the basis that they possess general qualification as well as technical qualification of Technical School Certificate. Hence it is contended that selection of respondents 5 to 29 are made on the basis that they possessed the requisite qualification as per the recruitment Rules.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that by virtue of Ext.P3 only a change in the proportion with respect to the quota earmarked to Board employees is effected and the qualification prescribed earlier was not changed. Learned counsel had drawn attention of this court to Ext.P3 wherein it is prescribed that all vacancies which occur immediately on the implementation of the revised norms shall be filled up at 80 : 20% by way of promotion and by direct recruitment from workman in the lower category possessing degree or diploma in Electrical Engineering respectively. But it is specifically mentioned in Ext.P3 that the vacancies which are arising thereafter has to be filled in the following manner. It prescribes that 30% shall be by way of direct recruitment through PSC and 10% by appointment through PSC from among qualified Board employees. It is contended that 10% quota earmarked for appointment through PSC from among qualified Board employees should possess Degree or Diploma as insisted in the case of filling up of vacancies existed as on the date of revision of the norms. But such a contention cannot be accepted in view of the prescription contained in Ext.P3. It is categorically mentioned in Ext.P3 that, “10% by appointment through PSC from among qualified Board employees”. The term, “from among qualified Board employees” can only be construed as Board employees possessing qualification prescribed for the relevant post. The qualification prescribed includes I.T.I certificate. Therefore the contention that selection of Board employees holding I.T.I certificate is illegal, cannot be accepted.
Under the above mentioned circumstances this writ petition deserves no merit and the same is dismissed.
AMG Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE True copy P.A. to Judge