Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.A.PRAVEEN, SUB ENGINEER versus KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.A.PRAVEEN, SUB ENGINEER v. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - WP(C) No. 34212 of 2006(W) [2006] RD-KL 4104 (21 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 34212 of 2006(W)

1. M.A.PRAVEEN, SUB ENGINEER
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM),

For Petitioner :SMT.S.KARTHIKA

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

Dated :21/12/2006

O R D E R

K.K.DENESAN, J.

WP(C)No. 34212 OF 2006

Dated this the 21st December, 2006.



JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a diploma holder in Electrical Engineering. He got appointment as Sub Engineer through Public Service Commission in the service of the Board. The next promotion post is that of Assistant Engineer. A ratio of 1:1 between direct recruits and promotees is prescribed for appointment/promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers. There is an internal ratio of 3:2 between diploma holders and certificate holders in the quota reserved for promotees. The petitioner's name is shown against serial No: 198 in Ext.P1 which is the list of eligible hands. His name appears among diploma holders.

2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as many as 185 Sub Engineers have already been promoted as Assistant Engineers and the petitioner's turn has reached going by the qualification possessed by him. Further promotions were made on 1.7.2006. According to the petitioner, 81 more diploma holders will have to be promoted and posted as Assistant Engineers to maintain the ratio prescribed by the recruitment rules.

3. Ext.P4 representation has been filed by the petitioner before the second respondent requesting to WPC 34212/2006 2 promote him to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) from Ext.P1 list prepared on 5.8.2004.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that early decision on Ext.P4 is necessary in the interest of justice. Legal Liaison Officer for the respondents submits that the second respondent will look into Ext.P4 and appropriate decision will be taken.

5. In the circumstances there shall be an order directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P4 in the light of the facts and circumstances stated therein as also the facts averred in the writ petition and take appropriate decision as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for due compliance. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. K.K.DENESAN Judge jj


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.