Kerala High Court
Ashok Sheriekar vs Binu. V.G on 8 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.BADARUDHEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021/17TH BHADRA,1943
WA NO.874/2021
AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2021 IN W.P.(C) NO.22881/2020 OF THIS COURT.
---
APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):
ASHOK SHERLEKAR,AGED 38 YEARS,S/O.M. SELVARAJ,
ASSISTANT ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL SECTION,POONTHURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 026. RESIDING AT T.C 17/2427-1,
KEDARAM NAGAR,PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.
BY ADV.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN W.P.(C):
1.BINU V.G.,AGED 46 YEARS,
S/O.SRI. GEORGE V.J.,ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
ELECTRICAL SECTION,MANANTHAVADY,KSEB LTD.,
RESIDING AT VAKAYIL HOUSE,NALLURNAD P.O.,
MANANTHAVADY -670 645.
2.AFZIL K.,AGED 43 YEARS,S/O.SRI. KASIM E.,ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
GENERATION DIVISION,MOOZHIYAR,KSEB LTD.,RESIDING AT TC 20/1665,
KUNCHALUMMOODU,KARAMANA P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002.
P.T.O.
3.SHIBU M.BASHA,AGED 44 YEARS,S/O.SRI. MOHAMMED BASHA,
ASSISTANT ENGINEER,TMR DIVISION,SHORANUR,KSEB LTD.,
RESIDING AT 'DILSHAD',KALLATTUMUKKU,MANACAUD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 009.
4.RAMU V.S.,AGED 41 YEARS,S/O.LATE V.K. SIVADAS,ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
220 K V SUB STATION,NALLILAM,KSEB LTD.,RESIDING AT VELIYIL HOUSE,
KOHINOOR,CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.,MALAPPURAM 673 635.
5.ANISH KUMAR P.,AGED 47 YEARS,S/O. LATE PARAMESWARAN NAIR,
ASSISTANT ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL DIVISION,VAIKOM,KSEB LTD,
RESIDING AT GEETHA BHAVAN,KUMARANELLOOR P.O.,KOTTAYAM 686 016.
6.JINNY SEBASTIAN,AGED 48 YEARS,S/O.SRI M.D. DEVASSY,
ASSISTANT ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL SECTION,THURAVOOR,KSEB LTD,
RESIDING AT MOOLAN HOUSE,MOOKKANNOOR P.O.,KOKKUNNU,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683577.
7.KIRAN R., AGED 38 YEARS,S/O. LATE M. RAJAN,ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
ELECTRICAL SECTION,HARIPAD,KSEB LTD,
RESIDING AT THEKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE,MANGALAM P.O.,
THRIKKUNNAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA 690 515.
8.AJIMON P.K., AGED 49 YEARS,S/O. SRI K.O. KURIAN,
ASSISTANT ENGINEER,TRANSGRID TC SECTION,KOTTAYAM,KSEB LTD,
RESIDING AT PUTHETTU HOUSE,THODANAL P.O.,PALA,KOTTAYAM 686 573.
9.KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM,PATTOM PALACE POST,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
10.CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM,
PATTOM PALACE POST,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
P.T.O.
11.CHIEF ENGINEER (HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT),
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,
VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM PALACE POST,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.
BY SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE AND
M/S.K.RADHAMANI AMMA, ANTONY MUKKATH,
H.VISHNUDAS & SETHU KRISHNA R.S. FOR R1 TO R8.
ADV.SRI.N.SATHEESH, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R9 TO R11.
Prayer for interim relief in the Writ Appeal stating that in the
circumstances stated in the appeal memorandum, the High Court be pleased
to stay the operation and implementation of the Judgment dated 15.03.2021
in W.P.(C) No.22881/2020 of the learned Single Judge, pending disposal of
the Writ Appeal.
This Writ Appeal coming on for orders on 08.09.2021 upon perusing
the appeal memorandum, the court on the same day passed the following:
P.T.O.
ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.EBGr4/GL 19.07.2019/AE/PH
DATED 17.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD.
ALEXANDER THOMAS & A.BADHARUDEEN,JJ.
------------------------------------------------
W.A No.748 of 2021
( against the judgment dated 15-03-2021 in W.P(C) No.22881 of 2020
on the file of this Court)
&
W.A No.874 of 2021
( against the judgment dated 15-03-2021 in W.P(C) No.22881 of 2020
on the file of this Court)
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of September, 2021
ORDER
W.A No.874 of 2021 :
The appellant in the present Writ appeal as well as the
respondent KSEB has raised serious contention that the writ
proceedings should have been dismissed solely on the ground of
non-impleadment of affected persons even though the matter
under challenge was a provisional seniority list in as much as
in-service Engineering Graduate Assistant Engineers appointed in
10% in-service quota have been impleaded in the present WP(C)
and therefore, the impugned directions and orders, none of them
could get a reasonable opportunity to present their versions both
on issues of fact as well as on law in the writ proceedings before
the verdict has been rendered in the instant case. We also note that
the learned Standing counsel for the KSEB has also raised the
above said objection in the W.P(C) stage as can be seen from the
W.A Nos. 748 of 2021 & 874 of 2021
reading of the impugned judgment in the W.P(C). The learned
counsel for the appellant submits that now, the respondent Board
authorities are taking hasty steps to comply with the directions of
the impugned judgment in the W.P(C), as can be seen from
Annexure 1 notice dated 17-08-2021, inviting the interested persons
for hearing, even though the writ appeal has been filed not only by
the contesting respondent in W.P(C) but also by the writ petitioners.
Whereas, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the contesting
respondents in W.A/writ petitioners would contend that since the
impugned list was only a provisional seniority list and since what
has been decided in the W.P(C) by the learned Single Judge are only
questions of law as to how the quota is to be worked out, formal
impleadment of affected persons is not a mandatory requirement, in
view of the decision of the Apex Court in the cases as in
Janardhana v. Union of India & Ors. [(1983) 3 SCC 601 :
AIR 1983 SC 769]. Whereas the learned counsel for the
appellant in W.A No.874 of 2021 would contend that legal position
has been dramatically altered subsequently by series of rulings of
the Apex Court on the above said subject and it has also been
held that even impleadment of an affected person in a
representative capacity and then impleadment through public
W.A Nos. 748 of 2021 & 874 of 2021
notice published in the newspaper as envisaged in Rule 148 of the
Kerala High Court Rules will not suffice and that affected persons
will have to be necessarily heard on their vital rights and interests,
etc. Though it is suggested by the contesting respondents in the
W.A/Writ petitioners that this Court may straight away decide the
correctness or otherwise of the questions of law decided by the
learned Single Judge in the W.P(C), we would caution ourself that
the above said objection will have to be properly considered and
appraised, before getting into the merits of the case. Accordingly,
both sides are requested to give summary of case laws of the Apex
Court and other High Courts, including this Court, if relevant,
regarding the above said legal position regarding the effect of non
impleadment of affected persons for challenging a provisional
seniority list or a final seniority list and whether there is any
substantial distinction if what is under challenge is the only a
provisional seniority list and not the final seniority list, etc. In the
meanwhile, to ensure that the subject matter of the lis is preserved,
it is ordered that further steps in pursuance of Annexure 1 notice
No.EBGr4/GL 19-07-2019/AE/PH dated 17-08-2021 issued by the
respondent KSEB, produced as I.A No.1 of 2021 in W.A No.874 of
2021 shall remain stayed and shall be kept in abeyance. This order
W.A Nos. 748 of 2021 & 874 of 2021
will be in force for a period of six weeks.
List the case along with W.A No.748 of 2021 in the admission
list on 23-09-2021.
W.A No.748 of 2021 :
List this appeal along with W.A No.874 of 2021 in admission
list on 23-09-2021.
H/o to both sides.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Sd/-
A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
amk
08-09-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
