JUDGMENT : These writ petitions are filed at the instance of various employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (KSEB), belonging to the category of and below the rank of Assistant Engineer, seeking appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer on the basis of the 10% reservation for in-service candidates. The petitioners contend that they were having the required qualifications – degree in Electronics and Communication – in tune with the provisions of Ext.P2 Regulations framed under the provisions of Section 177 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (‘the Act’ for short), on the basis of which Ext.P3 notification was issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC). However, though they participated in the selection process, by Ext.P6, the selection process came to be cancelled, placing reliance on Ext.P4 order dated 30.04.2022 (in W.P.(C) No.440 of 2023). It is in such circumstances that the captioned writ petitions are filed at the instance of the petitioners herein. 2. I have heard Dr. K.P. Satheesan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.16222 of 2023 and 440 of 2023, Sri. K.R. Ganesh, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.16741 of 2023, Sri. K.S. Anil, the learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB, Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing counsel for the KPSC, Sri. Peter Jose Christo, the learned counsel for additional respondents 4 to 6 in W.P.(C) No.440 of 2023, Sri. Arun Thomas, the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 in W.P.(C) No.16222 of 2023 and respondents 8 to 10 in W.P.(C) No.16741 of 2023, Smt. T.N. Sreekala, the learned counsel for respondents 7 to 10 in W.P.(C) No.16222 of 2023 and respondents 11 to 14 in W.P.(C) No.16741 of 2023. 3. The short issue arising for consideration in these writ petitions is as to the right of the KPSC/KSEB to mark a departure from Ext.P2 Regulations framed under the provisions of Section 177 of the Act as is seen attempted to be carried out through Ext.P4 Board order. 4. Dr.Satheesan, the learned Senior Counsel, would contend that Ext.P2 Regulations are binding on the Board as well as the KPSC and hence there cannot be any departure from Ext.P2 at the instance of the Board or the KPSC. He would also contend that, even if Ext.P4 can have any application, that can be only a prospective application. 5. 4. Dr.Satheesan, the learned Senior Counsel, would contend that Ext.P2 Regulations are binding on the Board as well as the KPSC and hence there cannot be any departure from Ext.P2 at the instance of the Board or the KPSC. He would also contend that, even if Ext.P4 can have any application, that can be only a prospective application. 5. On the face of the afore contention, the learned counsel, Sri.Arun Thomas, would rely on the judgment in W.P.(C) No.12848 of 2021 dated 30.01.2023, rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court. That was a case with reference to the appointment to the post of Sub Engineer (Electrical) in KSEB. It was the contention raised before the learned Single Judge that, as in the case at hand, in departure to the Regulations framed under the provisions of the Act, the qualifications prescribed thereunder were diluted. This Court, even after finding that the Regulations were binding on the Board, came to the following findings; “8. It is the specific case of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that it was after due deliberations and considering all relevant aspects of the matter and after due consultation with the Government and the PSC that the present qualifications were fixed. The Board contends that the nature of the duties of the post in question was specifically considered and it was decided that a Diploma in Electrical Engineering or Electrical and Electronics Engineering was the apt qualification for appointment as Sub Engineer (Electrical). I am of the opinion that the question with regard to the sufficiency of one qualification or the propriety in omitting another are matters which fall completely within the competence of the appointing authority and this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot delve into the reasons which prompted the prescription of the qualifications. I find that the Board has the power to fix the qualification of its employees provided that the qualifications are not below the general qualifications as provided in Exhibit P5 Regulation.” 6. I am of the opinion that the principles laid down in the afore judgment apply to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand also. 7. I find that the Board has the power to fix the qualification of its employees provided that the qualifications are not below the general qualifications as provided in Exhibit P5 Regulation.” 6. I am of the opinion that the principles laid down in the afore judgment apply to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand also. 7. True, the learned Senior Counsel, Dr.Satheesan, would rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in C.L. Verma v. State of M.P. and Another [ AIR 1990 SC 463 ] to contend that an administrative instruction – Ext.P4 in the case at hand, issued by the Board – cannot override the provisions of the Regulations, which is one framed with reference to the statutory power under the Act, and add that, insofar as the judgment of the learned Single Judge relied on by the respondents as above, has not taken note of the afore, the matter requires a reconsideration. 8. However, I am of the opinion that, as of now, the position is one settled by the judgment of the learned Single Judge referred to above. 9. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to succeed. Resultantly, these writ petitions would stand dismissed.