Kerala High Court
Sheela K.P vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited on 4 July, 2025
2025:KER:48425
W.A No.469 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 469 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.02.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.18599 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WP(C):
SHEELA K.P
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O.BABY, KAVARA HOUSE, IRUMPANAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682309
BY ADV SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WP(C):
1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, 8TH FLOOR,
VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695004
2 CHIEF ENGINEER [HRM], KSEBL
VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
685004
2025:KER:48425
W.A No.469 of 2025
2
3 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HEAD OFFICE, M.G ROAD, NEAR
PATTOM JUNCTION, THULASI HILLS, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, SC FOR R1 & R2
SHRI.REGI MATHEW
SHRI.JOSEPH M.L.
SHRI.VANDAMEN ROX ANTONY K.
SHRI.TOMY CHACKO
SRI.P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC FOR R3.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.07.2025, THE COURT ON 04.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:48425
W.A No.469 of 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the
Kerala High Court Act, 1958 arises out of the judgment dated
07.02.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.18599 of 2024 whereby the
learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was
appointed notionally as Sub Engineer (Civil) on 18.12.2003 in the
Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (KSEBL). However, on the
same day, she was retrenched as there was no vacancy, however,
the said appointment was made in pursuance to the interim order
dated 31.07.2002 passed in CMP No.29296 of 2002 in OP
No.17196 of 2002.
3. The appellant had filed the writ petition praying for the
following reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction declaring that the petitioner is
entitled to get regular appointment in the post of
Sub Engineer [Civil] on the basis of Ext.P4 order of
the 1" respondent and P8 judgment of this Hon'ble
2025:KER:48425
W.A No.469 of 2025
Court first in view of Sec.25H of the Industrial
Disputes Act and in view of notification of 15
vacancies to the post of Sub Engineer [Civil] arose in
the 30% quota earmarked for direct recruitment as
per Ext.P10 and direct the respondents no.1 and 2 to
appoint the petitioner immediately to the post of Sub
Engineer [Civil] and sanction and disburse all service
benefits due to her within a time frame fixed by this
Hon'ble Court.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction directing the respondents no.
1 and 2 to issue regular appointment order to the
petitioner to the post of Sub Engineer [Civil] in any
of the posts notified as per Ext.P10 as per the
seniority in the list prepared on the basis of Ext.P4.
c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction directing the respondents not
to further proceed with selection process as per
Ext.P10 by issuing advice memo or appointment
order unless and until candidates who are appointed
and retrenched as per Ext.P4 is given appointment
first.
d) Issue such other appropriate writs, orders or
directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2025:KER:48425
W.A No.469 of 2025
e) Dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular
documents produced by the petitioner in the above
case".
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
learned Single Judge has failed to consider that since the
appellant was appointed in pursuance to the interim order of this
Court and was terminated due to want of vacancies, the
respondents are obliged to appoint her in the post of Sub
Engineer (Civil) whenever a vacancy has been notified by Kerala
Public Service Commission. In the instant case, notification for 15
vacancies for appointment to the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) has
been issued on 01.10.2022 (Ext.P10), and therefore, the
appellant would have preferential right for being appointed on the
said post. Learned counsel further contended that the
retrenchment is in violation of Section 25H of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ID Act').
Further, the said order has not been challenged either before the
Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court or before this Court.
Therefore, the appellant had approached this Court seeking writ of
2025:KER:48425
W.A No.469 of 2025
mandamus commanding the respondents to issue regular
appointment to her, to the post of Sub Engineer (Civil). The
learned Single Judge ought to have issued such directions.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed
the prayer and submitted that first of all, the appellant is seeking
appointment to the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) which is a
supervisory post. Therefore, she cannot be said to be a
"workman" and therefore, the ID Act would not be applicable.
The appellant's service was terminated while she was on
probation on 28.01.2004. The appellant had approached this
Court after 20 long years and therefore, she cannot have any
right for seeking appointment to a post which is notified in the
year 2022. There is no Rule which provides for giving preferential
appointment to the appellant. The learned Single Judge has
rightly come to the conclusion that, after having accepted the
order dated 28.01.2004 whereby the notional appointment given
to the appellant was cancelled for want of vacancies, no right
accrues to the appellant for appointment against any further
2025:KER:48425
W.A No.469 of 2025
vacancy. In view of the aforesaid, the writ appeal also deserves
to be dismissed.
6. Heard both sides and perused the record as well as the
Rules.
Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any
Rule where he can seek appointment after 20 years. Therefore,
we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge
has rightly dismissed the writ petition.
This writ appeal being bereft of merit and substance is
hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M
JUDGE
smp
