Back
2024 Supreme(Ker) 725
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
James M David – Petitioner
Versus
The Government Of Kerala, Represented By Its Secretary, Power Department and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) NO.30806 OF 2022
Decided On : 05-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Rinny Stephen Chamaparampil, Archana Ramanan, Anjana S., Asha Elizabeth Mathew, Adv.
For the Respondent: Vipin P Varghese, Sc, P.Benny Thomas, Adarsh Mathew, Kevin Mathew George, Meera Elsa George, Merline Mathew, D.Prem Kamath Tom Thomas (Kakkuzhiyil), Abel Tom Benny, Kurian Oommen Therakath, Jaikrishnan.M.Pisharodi, K.S.Muhammed Shefin, Smt.Anima.M, Government Pleader
IMPORTANT POINT
The term 'power sector' in the context of regulatory qualifications can be interpreted broadly to include relevant electrical engineering experience from various industries, not limited to traditional power generation and distribution.
Headnote:
POWER SECTOR - Electricity Ombudsman Appointment - Regulation 15(1) of KSERC Regulations, 2005 - The court interpreted 'Power Sector' in the context of Regulation 15(1) of the KSERC Regulations, determining that the term encompasses a broader range of experiences related to electrical engineering, not limited to traditional power generation and distribution. The court upheld the selection committee's decision to appoint the 4th respondent as Electricity Ombudsman, emphasizing the importance of the candidate's extensive experience in electrical engineering across various sectors, including aviation, which was deemed relevant to the power sector.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Chief Engineer from KSEBL, challenged the appointment of the 4th respondent as Electricity Ombudsman, arguing that the latter lacked the requisite 20 years of experience in the power sector as mandated by Regulation 15 of the KSERC Regulations. The 4th respondent had experience primarily in the aviation sector, which the petitioner contended did not qualify as experience in the power sector.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the term 'power sector' is not narrowly defined in the relevant regulations and can include various experiences related to electrical engineering. The court concluded that the 4th respondent's extensive background in electrical projects, including those at CIAL, qualified him for the position of Electricity Ombudsman, despite the petitioner's claims.
Issues: Whether the 4th respondent met the qualifications required under Regulation 15 of the KSERC Regulations for the position of Electricity Ombudsman, specifically regarding his experience in the power sector.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the interpretation of 'power sector' should not be limited to traditional definitions but should encompass a wider range of electrical engineering experiences. The selection committee's decision was upheld as it was based on a comprehensive evaluation of the 4th respondent's qualifications and experience.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the legality of the 4th respondent's appointment as Electricity Ombudsman.
JUDGMENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
The question involved in this writ petition concerns the interpretation of the words “Power Sector” in Regulation 15(1) of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2005 regarding the appointment of the Electricity Ombudsman.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner retired from the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘KSEBL’) as Chief Engineer. He is a B.Tech graduate in Electrical Engineering from the College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram. He was appointed to the KSEBL in 1990 as an Assistant Engineer and then promoted to Assistant Executive Engineer, Executive Engineer, and Deputy Chief Engineer. He was appointed as Chief Engineer in the year 2015 and continued till he superannuated in the year 2021. He has a total experience of 31 years in KSEBL, a company in the power sector, out of which 10 years of experience is in generation, 10 years in transmission, and 11 years in distribution. Chapter 3 of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations (hereinafter referred to as KSERC) deals with the establishment of an Electricity Ombudsman, qualifications and tenure of appointment, powers, and duties, maintainability of complaints, its disposal, proceedings and award etc.
3. Regulation 15 deals with the Qualifications and Tenure of the appointment of the Electricity Ombudsman. A notification was issued by the 2nd respondent on 21.02.2022 inviting applications to fill out the post of Electricity Ombudsman (Ext.P2). Pursuant to the notification, the petitioner submitted an application dated 03.03.2022 with relevant experience certificates. As per the stipulation in Regulation 15 and Ext.P2 notification, the petitioner is qualified and has the requisite experience in the power sector to be appointed as Electricity Ombudsman. After the issuance of the order impugned, appointing the 4th respondent as Electricity Ombudsman, the petitioner got reliable information that the 4th respondent does not have the required experience of 20 years in the power sector as mandated in Regulation 15 of the KSERC and Ext.P2 notification.
4. The 4th respondent was working on the date of issuance of Ext.P2 notification as Executive Director in the Airport Operations Department of Cochin International Airport Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIAL’), and before that, he was working in the Airport Authority of India, both in Aviation Sector. The 4th respondent does not have experience in the power sector, but his experience is in the aviation sector. Therefore, the 4th respondent is not eligible to be appointed as Electricity Ombudsman, as per the mandate of Regulation 15 of the Regulations. CIAL is a Commercial Airport and cannot be considered a power sector enterprise by any stretch of the imagination. Schedule V declaration submitted by the CIAL under the Companies Act along with its annual report for 2021-22 shows that it is an Aviation Industry established as an Airport built with a Public-Private Partnership. Even though the 4th respondent did not have the requisite experience of 20 years in the power sector, he was short-listed and called for an interview conducted on 22.03.2022, in which the petitioner also participated.
5. The chairman of the 2nd respondent and the member (Law) of the 2nd respondent interviewed the applicants, and the 2nd respondent issued order No.2082/Admin./2019/KSRC dated 05.04.2022 by which the 4th respondent has been appointed as the Electricity Ombudsman with effect from 02.05.2022. The appointment order is produced as Ext.P9. Despite the appointment of the 4th respondent as Electricity Ombudsman with effect from 02.05.2022, he continued to discharge duties as the Executive Director of CIAL without joining duty as the Electrici
