Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, J.
Binu. V.G. And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C).No.22881 OF 2020(I)
Decided On : 15-03-2021
Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules – Rule 27A – Seniority List – Essential argument impelled is that a “quota” in recruitment is interlocked with “rota” and therefore, that seniority in the cadre is to be fixed as per the third proviso to Rule 27A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (KS & SSR). – However, as is now settled, the “Quota Rule” does not inevitably, invoke the application of the 'Rota Rule” and will depend whether a particular roster is stipulated in the applicable Rules or Regulations for figuring out the placement of officers on entry. – Petitioners, therefore, seek that the KSEB be directed to re-cast the provisional seniority list strictly in terms of the third proviso to Rule 27A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 –
Finding of the Court:
Court is afraid that court cannot accede to this argument because, what is contained in Ext.P35 is the opinion of the Chief Engineer, which he appears to have garnered from the various orders of the Board and the judgments of this Court, but this cannot be taken as being conclusive to mean that there is such a ratio applicable in the services of the KSEB, as far as the posts of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) are concerned – Orders on record do not show any such ratio, except between direct recruits as a whole, Certificate holders and Diploma holders; while within the category of direct recruits, only the afore quotas have been prescribed and not a roster or ratio. – Provisions of the third proviso to Rule 27A of the KS & SSR will not apply as far as the seniority of the two categories of persons, who are appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the KSEB, through the direct recruitment stream – Court is of the opinion that, though Ext.P38 need not be set aside by this Court, it requires to be reviewed by the competent Authority of the KSEB, verifying whether any person has been appointed in excess of the applicable quota at the relevant time, which will certainly necessitate an assessment of the vacancy position from time to time. – This is certainly necessary, going by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court afore cited and without this, the fixing of seniority among the two categories ? who enjoy separate quotas ? recruited to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), cannot be granted imprimatur – Writ petition is ordered to the extent of directing the KSEB to re-examine Ext.P38 provisional seniority list, after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, as also to all other persons who are included therein; and then recast it, if so necessary, after assessing the vacancy position at the time when each of the recruitment processes had been completed and to re-publish it as a fresh provisional seniority list –
Result: Order Accordingly
JUDGMENT :
Projected in this writ petition are the subtleties and nuances of the well entrenched concepts of “Quota – Rotation” in service jurisprudence. This doctrine, better known as the “Quota – Rota Rule” applies when there are more than one source of recruitment to a post.
2. The essential argument impelled is that a “quota” in recruitment is interlocked with “rota” and therefore, that seniority in the cadre is to be fixed as per the third proviso to Rule 27A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (KS & SSR). However, as is now settled, the “Quota Rule” does not inevitably, invoke the application of the 'Rota Rule” and will depend whether a particular roster is stipulated in the applicable Rules or Regulations for figuring out the placement of officers on entry.
3. The above issues have been called into focus in this case in relation to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. (for short, 'the KSEB').
4. A quick travel through the unexpendable facts will first be apposite.
5. The petitioners are stated to be Assistant Engineers working with the KSEB; and have approached this Court assailing Ext.P38 Provisional Seniority List of Assistant Engineers (Electrical), who were directly recruited into its services as on 25.03.2014.
6. According to the petitioners, the appointments to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in KSEB are to be effected in the roster/ratio of 1:4:3:2 from among the “in service” engineering graduates, direct recruits from open market, diploma holders and certificate holders (the last of the two categories being promotions). They say that they were “in service” candidates who had acquired graduation and therefore, appointed as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) under the 10% quota ear-marked for them. Their grievance shown in this writ petition is that they have been placed below the direct recruits in excess of their 40% quota and that this robs them of all avenues for further promotions in their career.
7. The petitioners, therefore, seek that the KSEB be directed to re-cast the provisional seniority list strictly in terms of the third proviso to Rule 27A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (KS & SSR).
8. I have heard Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.H.Vishnudas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri.Elvin Peter P.J., learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and Smt.Anitha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSEB.
9. Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel, began his submissions by asserting that since the roster of appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) has been statutorily prescribed, the seniority list will have to be settled strictly in terms of the positions therein, which is to say by following the “Quota and Rotational” prescriptions. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that since 10% vacancies are to be concededly filled up by “in service” candidates like his clients, they are entitled to be placed in the seniority list strictly as per the third proviso to Rule 27A of the KS & SSR and alleges that Ext.P38 provisional seniority list has been prepared in gross violation of the same, thus being egregiously improper, when, admittedly, the provisions of the KS & SSR had been adopted by the KSEB.
10. The learned senior counsel in support of his submissions relied on Mervyn Continho and others v. Collector of Customs, Bombay and others [AIR 1967 SC 52]; Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India [1992 Supp (1) SCC 272]; N.K.Chauhan & others v. State of Gujarat & others [(1977) 1 SCC 308]; P.S.Mahal and others v. Union of India and others [AIR 1984 SC 1291]; M.S.L.Patil, Asstt. Conservator of Forests, Solarpur (Maharashtra) and others v. State of Maharashtra and others [(1996) 11 SCC 361]; A.N.Sehgal and others v. Raje Ram Sheoran and others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 304]; and Arvinder Singh Bains v. State of Punjab and others [(2006) 6 SCC 673].
11. In refutation of the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
