U.P.Power Corpn. Ltd.
Vs. Ayodhya Prasad Mishra & ANR.  INSC 1543 (11 September 2008)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 670 OF 2008 U.P. POWER
CORPORATION LTD. ... APPELLANT VERSUS
C.K. THAKKER, J.
present appeal is filed by the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow
against the judgment and order dated May 17, 2007 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) in Writ Petition No. 491(S/B) of 2007.
By the said order, the Division Bench of the High Court held that criterion for
promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer from the post of 2 Executive
Engineer is merit i.e. selection and placement of an Executive Engineer in
Category I prior to other officers placed in Category- II. A direction was
issued by the Court to the Corporation to offer to the writ-petitioner first
available vacancy of Superintending Engineer and to promote him to the said
appreciate the points raised in the present appeal, few relevant facts may be
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation (`Corporation' for short) (previously known as
Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board) is a `Board' as defined in Clause (2) of
Section 2 and constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948
(hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). It is thus an instrumentality of
"State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. For
conditions of service of its employees, the Board, in exercise of power
conferred by Clause (c) of Section 79 of the Act framed 3 `regulations' known
as the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Service of Engineers Regulations,
1970 (hereinafter referred to as `the regulations'). The regulations are thus
statutory in nature. They deal with appointment of Engineers, their promotion
and other service conditions.
regulations, inter alia, provide for appointment and promotion to the following
(i) Chief Engineer
Level-I (ii) Chief Engineer Level-II (iii) Superintending Engineer (iv)
Executive Engineer (v) Assistant Engineer
present appeal relates to appointment by promotion to the post of
Superintending Engineer from the post of Executive Engineer. It was the case of
writ petitioner (respondent No. 1) that he was 4 working as Executive Engineer
and was eligible and qualified to be promoted as Superintending Engineer under
the regulations. In accordance with the regulations, the case of the writ-
petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), he was
found fit and on the basis of marks obtained by him, he was placed in
Category-I. It was his case that there were several posts of Superintending
Engineer which were required to be filled in initially from Executive Engineers
placed in Category-I and thereafter in the event of more vacancies being
available, the cases of Executive Engineers placed in Category-II were to be
considered. Unfortunately, however, according to the writ petitioner, though he
was in Category-I and had secured maximum marks (191.3 out of 200), he was not
promoted. The said action was illegal, unlawful and inconsistent with the
regulations which constrained the writ-petitioner to approach the High Court by
instituting a writ petition.
High Court was convinced that the action of the Corporation was illegal and
contrary to law. Accordingly, a direction was issued by the High Court to the
Corporation to offer to the writ-petitioner first available vacancy of
Superintending Engineer and to promote him on the said vacancy. That action is
challenged by the Corporation in this Court by filing the present appeal.
September 5, 2007, notice was issued by this Court and time was granted to file
counter affidavit which was, thereafter, filed. By an order dated March 10,
2008, the Bench presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India directed
the Registry to post the appeal for final hearing during the first part of
summer vacation and accordingly the matter was placed for final hearing before
have heard learned counsel for the parties.
counsel for the Corporation contended that the order passed by the High 6
Court was illegal and contrary to law. He submitted that the action of not
promoting the writ petitioner was in consonance with the statutory regulations
framed by the Corporation. It was urged that under the regulations, promotions
are to be given from the post of Executive Engineer to the post of
Superintending Engineer. For that purpose, categories were to be fixed. It was
stated that under the regulations, Executive Engineers placed in Categories I
and II could be promoted to the promotional post of Superintending Engineer.
Executive Engineers in Category III were not considered eligible for promotion.
According to the
counsel, once an Executive Engineer is considered eligible to the promotional
post of Superintending Engineer either because his name is found in Category I
or Category II, inter se seniority of such Executive Engineers was required to
be maintained and promotion as Superintending 7 Engineer was to be given on
the basis of such seniority.
was not disputed by the counsel that the writ petitioner was placed in Category
I as he had obtained maximum marks. He was, hence, eligible and qualified to be
promoted as Superintending Engineer. But the case of the Corporation was that
several other Executive Engineers were also found suitable and eligible who
were placed in Category II. In view of the fact that they were senior to the
writ- petitioner, their cases were considered before the case of the writ-petitioner
as they were required to be promoted. Such action of the Corporation was legal
and lawful and the writ- petitioner had no right to make grievance.
High Court, by the impugned order held that considering the scheme of statutory
regulations, it was clear that Executive Engineers who obtained more marks and
placed in Category I would get priority in getting promotion as Superintending
Engineer over those 8 Executive Engineers who were found eligible and
qualified but because of less marks found their placement in Category II.
Promotion to the post of the Superintending Engineer was to be made on `merit'
and it was precisely for that reason that separate lists were to be prepared in
three categories viz., Category I, Category II and Category III. Executive
Engineers placed in Category III were held ineligible for promotion. The High
Court, therefore, held that it was not open to the Corporation to ignore legal
and legitimate claim of Executive Engineer placed in Category I by giving
promotion to an Executive Engineer found eligible and qualified but placed in
Category II. Executive Engineers of Category I must get precedence for
promotion as Superintending Engineers over those Executive Engineers who were
eligible and qualified to be promoted as Superintending Engineers but included
in Category II.
High Court held that in view of settled legal position, the writ petitioner was
entitled to have offered promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer since
he was placed in Category I of Executive Engineers. Though the writ petitioner
had obtained highest number of marks, another Executive Engineer, namely, Surya
Narain Bajpai also found place in Category I. In view of maintenance of inter
se seniority, i.e. seniority in the same category (Category I), said Surya
Narain Bajpai was treated as senior to the writ petitioner. He was, therefore,
considered for promotion as Superintending Engineer. It may, however, be stated
that by the time the High Court heard and decided the matter, Surya Narain Bajpai
was already promoted as Superintending Engineer.
The High Court,
therefore, directed the Board to offer to the writ-petitioner the first post of
Superintending Engineer which was to fall vacant in near future.
High Court stated that Mr. Sandeep Dixit, learned counsel, appearing for the
Corporation, stated that the Corporation had no objection in giving the first
available vacancy of Superintending Engineer to the writ petitioner.
learned counsel for the appellant- Corporation contended that the counsel
appearing for the Corporation had no power or authority to make any concession
on behalf of the Corporation and no order could have been made on `so called'
concession by the advocate for the Corporation. It was urged that even
otherwise, it is well settled that there can be no concession on a question of
law and, hence, even if such concession was made, it was of no avail. Since the
writ petitioner had no right to get promotion, notwithstanding concession or
statement by the counsel for the Corporation, neither mandamus could have been
issued by the High Court nor direction could have been given 11 to the
Corporation to offer first vacancy of Superintending Engineer to the writ
learned counsel for respondent NO.2-State supported the stand taken by the
Corporation and submitted that the High Court was wrong in issuing the
direction to the Corporation and the said order deserves to be set aside.
learned counsel for the writ petitioner, on the other hand, supported the order
passed by the High Court. The counsel raised a preliminary objection against
the maintainability of the appeal. It was contended that the order impugned in
the present appeal was a `consent order' inasmuch as it was passed by the Court
on concession made by the learned advocate appearing for the Corporation. No
appeal lies against an order made by the Court with consent of parties. This
Court, therefore, may decline to hear the appellant and dismiss the appeal on
counsel, however, submitted that even on merits, no case has been made out by
the Corporation against the direction issued by the High Court. It was
submitted that the scheme of statutory regulations is abundantly clear and
allows no interpretation other than the one accepted by the High Court. In
accordance with the regulations, promotion from the post of Executive Engineer
to the post of Superintending Engineer was to be given on merit. For the said
purpose, cases of eligible Executive Engineers were to be considered and all
Executive Engineers were to be placed in three categories. Promotion as
Superintending Engineer was to be made initially from those Executive Engineers
who were placed in Category I. In case of availability of more vacancies of
Superintending Engineers, Executive Engineers from Category II were to be
considered and promoted. Since the writ petitioner was in Category I, his case
was to be considered before any Executive Engineer whose name was 13 included
in Category II was to be considered.
Since it was not
done, the writ petitioner had to approach the High Court and the High Court
rightly allowed his petition. No interference against the said order is called
for and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
what is stated above, the only question which calls for our consideration is as
to how promotion should be effected from the post of Executive Engineer to the
post of Superintending Engineer. As already noted by us, in exercise of power
under the Act, Regulations have been framed by the Board to which our attention
has been invited by the learned counsel for the parties. Part I is `General'
and contains `Title, Commencement of the Regulations and Definition of Various
Terms'. Part II comprises of different Cadres and `Strength of Service'. Part
III specifies `Source of Recruitment'. Regulation 5 declares that initial
recruitment to the service shall 14 be made to the post of Assistant Engineer
from three different cadres, viz., (i) by appointment from amongst Trained
Engineers (65.1/3%), (ii) by promotion from amongst members of Junior Engineers
(33.1/3%), and (iii) by promotion from amongst the confirmed and qualified
Computers (Selection Grade) (E/M) (1.13%).
(2) of Regulation 5 reads;
(2) Appointments to
the other higher posts shall be made by promotion on the basis of selections
which will be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in Appendix `D'.
6 provides for `Reservation of Vacancies'. Part IV prescribes `Qualifications'.
Part V relates to `Appointment, Probation and Confirmation'.
provides for appointment to the posts of Executive Engineer, Superintending
Engineer, Chief Engineer (Level II) and Chief Engineer (Level I) and reads as
Appointment to the
posts of Executive Engineer, Superintending 15 Engineer, Chief Engineer
(Level-II) and Chief Engineer (Level-I).- (1) Appointment to the posts higher
than that of Assistant Engineer shall be made by the Appointing Authority from
the `Select List' prepared in Rule 8(1) of Appendix `D'. In making such
appointment, the order in which the names of the officers appear in the Select
list shall be followed.
under the scheme of Regulations of 1970, Regulations 5(2) and 18 have to be
read with Appendix `D'. Appendix D lays down procedure for selection to the
post of Chief Engineer (Level I), Chief Engineer (Level II), Superintending
Engineer and Executive Engineer.
In the present case,
we are concerned with selection to the post of Superintending Engineer. The
relevant part of Appendix `D' relating to Superintending Engineer is found in
para 3 and paras 5 to 8.
3 prescribes minimum service as Executive Engineer so as to enable such officer
to be considered eligible for the promotional post of Superintending Engineer.
Para 5 16 declares that for the selection to the post of Chief Engineer (Level
I), Chief Engineer (Level II) and Superintending Engineer, there shall be a
Selection Committee consisting of the members enumerated therein. Most
important provision is found in para 6 which prescribes `Criteria for
Promotion'. It reads as under:
Promotion The selection to the post of Chief Engineer (L-1), Chief Engineer
(L-II) and Superintending Engineer shall be made on the basis of Merit while
promotion to the post of E.E. shall be based on seniority subject to rejection
of the unfit.
8 is equally important and requires `Preparation of a list for selection and of
selected candidates'. It reads thus;
Preparation of a list
for selection and of selected candidates.
(1) The Selection
Committee shall, keeping in view the criteria, on the basis of the selection to
a particular post in the service, prepare a list of such officers as are
adjudged by it to be most suitable for promotion to that post.
17 (a) The list in
case of selection for the post of Superintending Engineer and above shall be
rearranged in order of seniority on the post from which the selection is made.
The list in the case of selection to the post of Executive Engineer shall be
prepared in order of seniority of the post of Assistant Engineer.
(b) The Chairman
shall issue appointment orders in respect of Superintending Engineer, Executive
Engineers (Special Grade), Executive Engineers, Sr. Asstt. Engineers, Sr.
Asstt. Engineers (Special Grade) and Assistant Engineers.
(c) The list of the
officers selected for the posts above Superintending Engineer shall be placed
before the Board for approval.
(3) The list so
prepared shall be reviewed and revised every year and fresh names added to it,
(4) If, in the
process of selection, review or revision, it is proposed to supersede any
officer of the post from which the selection is made, the Selection Committee
shall record its reasons for the suppression. The reasons so recorded shall,
however, not be communicated.
of the Court was also invited to an Office Memorandum dated July 11, 1996. The
said O.M. reads as under:
Uttar Pradesh State
Electricity Board, Shakti Bhavan, 14, Ahoka Marg, Lucknow.
No:-1327 - P
&FP/SEB-29/96-14P&FP/87 Dated:-11th July 1996.
Office Memorandum The
Board has laid down the procedure, as per annexure, for granting promotions, to
the posts of all the cadres, which are filled on the basis of recommendations
of the Departmental Selection Committees, on the basis of criteria,
"Merit" and "Seniority subject to rejection of unfit".
The same shall come
into force, with immediate effect.
By Order of the Board
Sd/- illegible [Ranveer Singh] Secretary.
criteria for selection procedure for promotion were also mentioned in the
Office Memorandum. The relevant part relating to selection to the post of
Superintending 19 Engineer [as also Chief Engineer (Level I and II)], is
 Where the
criterion is `Merit':- Selection to the post of Chief Engineer [Level-I and II]
and Superintending Engineer and posts equivalent thereto, shall be done, in
accordance with this criterion.
 Eligibility:- The
Appointing Authority shall prepare separate eligibility lists of senior most
candidates for each category i.e. General, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes, in the light of vacancies available for each of the said categories
containing names as far as possible, three times the number of vacancies,
subject to a minimum of eight, Provided further that, if the appointment is to
be made for vacancies, for more than one year, separate eligibility lists shall
be prepared, in respect of each such year and such a case while preparing the
eligibility lists, the number of candidates to be included, shall be as
follows:- (a) For the second year - The number according to the said proportion
plus the number of vacancies for the first year.
20 (b) For the third
year - The number according to the said proportion plus the number of vacancies
for the first year and second year.
of candidates was to be made on the basis of marks obtained on combined
entries. Para VII of the Office Memorandum reads;
categorization of candidates on the basis of marks obtained:- Category No.1 The
candidates securing either 90% (ninety per cent) or 180 marks or more, shall be
classified into category No.1.
The earning of marks
for this category shall be done on the basis of entries reckoned for a period of
ten years. In case entries, for any period out of the said ten years, are not
available then entries immediately preceding the said period, shall be taken
into account but entry for as many years of the period under consideration
shall be deemed to be omitted.
Category No.2 21 For
the post of Chief Engineer (Level-1) and equivalent, officers securing seventy
(70) per cent (that is 140 marks);
for the post of Chief
Engineer (Level-2) and equivalent, Officers securing Seventy (65) percent (that
is 130 marks); and for the post of Superintending Engineer and equivalent
officers securing seventy (60) percent (that is 120) marks shall be classified
in the category-2.
Officers securing marks below the marks as laid down for category No.2 shall be
classified in category No.3.
for the purpose of promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, Executive
Engineers are to be divided in the following three Categories on the basis of
obtained (i) Category I 180 or more (ii) Category II 120 to 179 (iii) Category
III Below 120
para VIII deals with `Selection and Preparation of Select List', a step before
a person is promoted to the higher 22 post on the basis of his placement in
the list and reads;
[VIII] Selection and
preparation of select list:- (a) The officers, classified in category No.3 as
per provisions of clause (vii) supra, shall not be fit for selection to any
(b) Subsequent to the
classification/ categorization of the candidates, in accordance with clause
(vii) supra, firstly the officers of category-1 shall be selected according to
their seniority. Thereafter, if need be, for remaining vacancies the officers
of category-2 shall be selected. Thus, in this manner, the names of all such officers
having been so selected, from within category Nos. 1 and 2, shall then be
rearranged, according to their respective serials, in their original order of
seniority and a select list be prepared accordingly, which shall be their
inter-se seniority list.
shall then be issued, in accordance with this seniority list. (emphasis
is the case of the writ petitioner that he was Executive Engineer and was
eligible to be considered for the promotional post of Superintending Engineer.
On the basis of Confidential Reports and marks obtained by him, 23 he was
placed in Category I. According to him, he had secured highest number of marks
i.e. 191.3 out of 200 i.e. more than 180. He, however, conceded that Surya
Narain Bajpai was senior to him (writ-petitioner) in the Cadre of Executive
Engineers who was also found eligible and suitable and was placed in Category
I. As per the rules of seniority, if two or more persons are placed in one and
the same Category, they will retain their inter se seniority in such Category.
In view of the said provision, though the writ petitioner was at the top in the
merit list in Category I, Surya Narain Bajpai who was also in Category I,
maintained his seniority over the seniority of the writ petitioner. The writ
petitioner, therefore, could be promoted immediately after said Surya Narain
Bajpai. But all other Executive Engineers who were placed in Category II could
not be considered for the promotional post of Superintending Engineer before
the Executive Engineers placed in Category I were 24 promoted as
Superintending Engineers and the list got exhausted. It was irrespective of
seniority in the cadre of Executive Engineer.
The High Court upheld
the said contention.
learned counsel for the Corporation vehemently contended that under the scheme
of promotion, Executive Engineers retained their seniority for the purpose of
getting promotional post of Superintending Engineer irrespective of their
placement in Category I or Category II. For that the counsel relied upon para
8(1)(a) referred to above, which, according to the counsel, protects seniority
of all officers in the cadre of Executive Engineers.
express our inability to agree with the learned counsel. In our judgment, the
scheme of promotion is explicitly clear. Posts of Chief Engineer I and II as
also of Superintending Engineer are considered as `higher' posts and sole
criterion for promotion to these posts is `merit'. Promotion to the 25 post of
Executive Engineer from the post of Assistant Engineer, on the other hand, is
based on `seniority subject to rejection of unfit'.
In other words, the
test of promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (as also Chief
Engineer I and II) and to the post of Executive Engineer is different. Whereas
in the former, it is the `merit' (positive test) which is relevant and
material, in the latter, it is `seniority subject to rejection of unfit'
(negative test), which is important. It is in the light of the `positive test'
that selection to the promotional post of Superintending Engineer was to be
made and names of eligible and qualified Executive Engineers were to be placed
in different Categories i.e. I, II (and III) on the basis of marks obtained by
who find place in Category I are considered `most suitable' for the promotional
post of Superintending Engineer.
Once a person finds
his placement in a particular Category (for instant Category I), 26 he retains
his original seniority irrespective of marks obtained by him. In other words,
after selection and placement of Executive Engineers in a particular category,
there will be rearrangement on the basis of inter-se seniority. But the said
exercise was to be undertaken only in the same category and not in the other
is no doubt in our mind that if any Executive Engineer who has been placed in
Category I and is available for the promotional post of Superintending
Engineer, no Executive Engineer who is included in Category II can be
considered for such promotion even if such Executive Engineer, who is in
Category II, is senior to an Executive Engineer, who because of his marks and
ranking, got entry and placement in Category I. To put it differently,
Executive Engineers in Category I and Category II cannot be said to be
similarly situated. They belong to different class. They, therefore, cannot be
have already dealt with the scheme of statutory regulations. Higher posts of
Superintending Engineer and above (Chief Engineer Level 1 and Chief Engineer
Level II) are to be filled in by way of promotion only on `merit'. Precisely
for that reason, regulations provide for consideration of cases of Executive
Engineers by Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and placement of such
Executive Engineers either in Category I or Category II on the basis of marks
obtained by them. In our considered opinion, placement of Executive Engineers
in Category I and Category II is lawful, reasonable and rational.
is well settled that Article 14 is designed to prevent discrimination. It seeks
to prohibit a person or class of persons from being singled out from others similarly
situated or circumstanced for the purpose of being specially subjected to
discrimination by hostile legislation. It, however, does not 28 prohibit
classification, if such classification is based on legal and relevant
classification, to be legal, valid and permissible, must fulfil the twin- test,
namely, (i) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia
which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others
left out of the group;
and (ii) such
differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved
by the statute or legislation in question.
the present case, the sole criterion for promotion of an Executive Engineer to
the post of Superintending Engineer is `merit'. The Regulations, therefore,
contemplate preparation of different select lists and allotment of marks. An
Executive 29 Engineer having 90% marks i.e. 180 or more out of 200 are to be
placed in Category I, while Executive Engineer having 60% or more i.e. 120 or
more (up to 179) are to be found in Category II. Such classification, in our
considered opinion, is perfectly reasonable and wholly rational. The
classification neither offends Article 14, nor Article 16 nor is otherwise
unreasonable infringing Article 19 of the Constitution. We have, therefore, no
hesitation in coming to the conclusion that Executive Engineers placed in
Category I and Category II are `unequals'.
is well-settled that equals cannot be treated unequally. But it is equally well
settled that unequals cannot be treated equally. Treating of unequals as equals
would as well offend the doctrine of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that
Executive Engineers placed in Category I must get priority and 30 preference
for promotion to the post of Superintendent Engineer over Executive Engineers
found in Category II. Acceptance of argument of the learned counsel for the
appellant Corporation that all eligible Executive Engineers maintain their
inter se seniority irrespective of their placement in different categories may
result in regulations being declared arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable. A
Court of law would interpret a provision which would help sustaining the
validity of law by applying the doctrine of `reasonable construction' than
accepting the interpretation which may lead such provision unsustainable and
ultra vires the Constitution.
[Vide Olga Tellis v.
Municipal Corporation, Bombay, (1985) 3 SCC 545; Japani Sahoo v.Chandra Sekhar
Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394]
was also submitted by the learned counsel for the Corporation that the
regulations have been interpreted, understood 31 and applied from the very
beginning in the manner as suggested by the Corporation. All Executive
Engineers retain their inter se seniority once their names are included in the
select list either in Category I or Category II for promotion to the post of
Superintending Engineer. Relying on N. Suresh Nathan v. Union of India, (1992) Supp
1 SCC 584 and S.B. Bhattacharjee v. S.D. Majumdar & Ors., (2007) 6 SCR 743,
it was submitted that normally, a Court would not disturb past practice
consistently followed by the Department if the view taken or practice followed
is also reasonable.
our opinion, however, the above principle does not help the appellant-
Corporation in the present case. As observed by us, under the Scheme of
Regulations, 1970, promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, Chief
Engineer II and Chief Engineer I is based on `merit'. If it is so, 32
consideration of merit alone is relevant and material. It is, therefore,
provided that once an Executive Engineer is considered eligible and fit for
promotion and placed in a particular category (Category I or Category II), he
will retain his inter se seniority in the said Category. But that will apply
only to those Executive Engineers who are placed in one and the same Category
and not in a different Category. An Executive Engineer of Category II cannot,
under the scheme of regulations, claim promotion over an Executive Engineer
placed in Category I. Such interpretation may possibly result in regulations
being declared ultra vires. The High Court, in our opinion, rightly not
accepted such interpretation and we see no infirmity therein.
cannot be two opinions that a concession of law cannot bind a party. [Vide B.S.
Bajwa & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (1998) 2 SCC 523; Union of India
v. Mohanlal 33 Likumal Punjabi, (2004) 3 SCC 628; Union of India & Anr. v.
S.C. Parashar, (2006) 3 SCC 167]. The learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner also did not dispute this proposition. In our opinion, however, the
so called `concession' was not against law. On the contrary, it was in
consonance with the scheme of statutory regulations as also consistent with the
Constitution. We have, therefore, kept aside the `so called' concession and
have considered the question in the light of statutory regulations referred to
above. Under the regulations, only one view is possible which has been taken by
the High Court and to us, the said view is correct.
the foregoing reasons, we see no substance in the appeal filed by the
Corporation, the same deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-.
(LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA)