Legal eligibility for promotion to supervisory roles must adhere to established regulations, as affirmed by the court's interpretation of duties.

O R D E R

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The writ petitioners, who were working as Meter Readers in the KSEB Limited, filed W.P.(C) No.37421/2023 aggrieved by the rejection of their claim for promotion to the post of Overseer (Electrical) on the ground that they did not fulfill the eligibility for promotion to the post of Overseer as per the Central Electricity Authority (Measures)

Relating to Safety and Electrical Supply Regulations, 2010.

2. The learned Single Judge, after considering the duties and responsibilities of the Overseer as enumerated in the counter affidavit, came to the conclusion that Overseers are not Supervisors and that they assist Engineers and higher authorities in performing functions.

3. Alleging errors apparent on the face of the case, the writ petitioners have filed this review petition. The review petitioners state that this Court has not considered the fact that the KSEB Limited has treated Overseers as having supervisory duties. By branding the Overseers as non- supervisory posts, the judgment effectively takes away the necessity to have qualifications prescribed under the Regulations, 2010.

4. The review petitioners further contend that many Supervisors have been proceeded departmentally for supervisory lapses. Because of the judgment, a large number of candidates, who were considered unqualified for appointment as Overseer (Electrical), will be treated as qualified for the same.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

6. Though the review petitioners contend that the duties and responsibilities of Overseers were never placed for consideration before this Court, from the judgment it is evident that the KSEB Limited in their counter affidavit had explained the duties and responsibilities of Overseers. This Court enumerated the duties in the judgment. Going through paragraph No.5 of the judgment, I do not find any error in the conclusions arrived at by this Court, in the judgment in the writ petition.

7. Further ground urged by the review petitioners is that the KSEB Limited had earlier treated Overseers as having supervisory duties. There is nothing in the writ petition to conclude that KSEB Limited had officially considered the Overseers as having supervisory duty. The fact that the KSEB Limited has earlier proceeded against some Overseers alleging supervisory lapses by itself will not bring Overseers within the ambit of Regulation 7.

For the afore reasons, I do not find any error apparent in the judgment warranting review. The review petition is hence dismissed.