Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala
& ANR Vs. Ravinder Kumar Sharma & Ors [1986] INSC 219 (27 October 1986)
RAY, B.C. (J) RAY, B.C. (J) SEN, A.P. (J)
CITATION: 1987 AIR 367 1987 SCR (1) 72 1986
SCC (4) 617 JT 1986 743 1986 SCALE (2)690
CITATOR INFO: RF 1989 SC 307 (5,8)
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950--Articles 14
& 16--State Electricity Board--Service rule--Promotion from post of line
men to line superintendent--Differentiation between diploma and non-diploma
qualified line men--Fixation of quota on such basis--Held illegal and
unconstitutional.
Civil Services--P.W.D. (Electricity Branch)
Provisional Class III (Subordinate Posts) Rules, 1952--Line Men to Line
Superintendent-Promotion of--Differentiation between diploma and non-diploma
holders in fixation of quota for promotion--Whether valid and constitutional.
HEADNOTE:
Plaintiff-respondent Ravinder Kumar Sharma
joined service as a Line-Man under the respondent-Electricity Board.
The terms and conditions of the service of
the Line-Man as well as of the Line-Superintendent were governed by the P.W.D.
(Electricity Branch) Provisional Class III (Subordinate posts) Rules 1952. The
Line-Man are either diploma holders or I.T.I. trained or non-diploma holders
and they form and constitute one common cadre known as Line-Man and were in the
same scale of pay. The seniority list of all the Line-Man is common and joint.
By order dated 12.7.1977, the respondent-Board promoted Gutdial Singh, Jaswant
Singh and Ramesh Kumar shown in the common seniority list at S. Nos.
1451, 1546 and 2309 respectively, to the pest
of Line-Superintendent even though the plaintiff-respondent's position in the
seniority list was at S. No. 995 and he was senior to the said officials. By
order dated 17.8.1977 the Chief Engineer of the respondent-Electricity Board
further promoted Sudesh Kumar and Virender Kumar whose name stand at S.
No. 1877 and 2279 in the joint seniority
list. The Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit alleging that this policy of
promotion from Line-Man to Line-Superintendent on a pick and choose basis by
fixing a quota between the diploma holders and non-diploma holders is wholly
illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary as it adversely affected the
promotional prospect of the non-diploma holders Line-Men and prayed for a
decree declaring that the orders dated 12.7.1977 and 73 17.8.1977 promoting the
defendants 3 to 7 are illegal, discriminatory and null and void as it
arbitrarily affects the rights of the plaintiff who is senior to them and that
he be promoted to the post of Line Superintendent from the date defendant Nos.
3 to 7 were promoted.
The defendant Nos. :1 and 2 contested the
claim of the plaintiff contending that the terms and conditions of service of
Line-Man and the Line-Superintendent are governed by the P.W.D. (Electricity
Branch) Provisional Service Class III (Subordinate Posts) Rules 1952 framed by
the State Government under Art. 309 of the Constitution, that the Electricity
Board by various orders prescribed quota for diploma holders Line-Men for
promotion to the post of Line Superintendent, that according to this quota the
defendant Nos. 3 to 7 have been promoted and that the fixation of the quota on
the basis of educational qualification cannot be questioned as arbitrary or
discriminatory The Subordinate Judge First Class decreed the suit, holding that
the plaintiff was entitled to promotion to the post of Line-Superintendent and
the orders dt.12.7.1977 and 17.8.1977 whereby the defendant Nos. 3 to 7 were
promoted even though they were junior to the plaintiff are illegal and in
violation of the rights of the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff was
declared to have been promoted from the date when his said juniors were
promoted.
The appeal filed by the State Electricity
Board was dismissed by the Additional District Judge holding that there was no
reasonable nexus by fixing quota for promoting diploma-holders Line-Men to the
post of Line-Superintendent even though the non-diploma holders as well as the
diploma holders formed the joint cadre of Line-Man for promotion to the post of
Line-Superintendent The judgments and decrees of the Courts below were affirmed
by the High Court.
Dismissing the Appeals and the Special Leave
Petition,
HELD: 1. There is no dispute, rather it is
not controverted that in the joint seniority list of Line-Men the
plaintiff-respondent's name was mentioned at S. No. 995 whereas names of
defendant Nos. 3 to 7 appear in the said list at S. Nos. 1451, 1546, 2309, 1877
and 2279 respectively Therefore, all the defendant Nos. 3 to 7 are junior to
the plaintiff-respondent It is also clear and evident from the Office Order No.
97 dated 22.10.68 that the qualification for promotion to the post of
Line-Superintendent from Line-Man is either holding certificate or diploma in
Electrical Engineering from any recognised institute or 74 having passed 11/2
years course in the electrical trade of Electrician/ Line-Man/Wire-Man from
recognised Industrial Training Institute and are matriculates and have worked
as Line-Man for four years continuously and immediately before the promotion.
[80A-C]
2. The plaintiff-respondent who is an Arts
Graduate and have I.T.I. Certificate (in the trade of electrician two years'
duration) and also have National Apprentice Certificate in the trade of
Line-Man 3 years' duration is eligible for promotion to the post of
Line-Superintendent as he has fulfilled all the requisite qualifications. All
the line-men either diploma holders or non-diploma holders are performing the
same kind of work and duties and they belong to the same cadre having
common/joint seniority list for promotion to the post of Line-Superintendent.
The Orders dated 12.7.1977 being Order No. 73 promoting defendant Nos. 3, 4 and
5 as well as Office Order No. 898 dated 37.8.77 promoting defendant Nos. 6 and
7 on the basis of quota from diploma holders as fixed by the order of the State
Electricity Board dated 9.5.74 is wholly arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and
violative of the equality clause contained in Arts. 14 and 16 of the
Constitution in as much as it purports to promote defendant Nos. 3 to 7 who are
admittedly junior to the plaintiff-respondent in service as Line-Man in the
State Electricity Board. [80D-G] Shujat Ali's case [1975] 1 SCR 449 at 480
followed.
3. There is no infirmity in the judgment of
the High Court affirming the judgment and decree of the Courts below.
[81E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
334142/83 & S.L.P. No. 2693/84 .
From the Judgment & Order dated 25-1-83
of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Regular Second Appeal No.
254/83 Hardev Singh and R.S. Sodhi for the
Appellants. C.S. Vaidyanathan for the Appellants in C.A.No. 3342/83.
Respondent-in-person.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B.C. RAY, J. These two appeals by special leave one by the 75 Punjab State
Electricity Board, Patiala and the other by Gurdial Singh & Ors. who were
defendant-respondent Nos.
3,4,6 and 7 in Civil Suit No.
293T/16-1-181/17-7-80 passed in R.S.A. No. 254/38 whereby the judgments and the
decrees of the courts below were affirmed decreeing the plaintiff respondent's
suit declaring that the plaintiffrespondent be deemed to have been promoted
from the date when his juniors as mentioned in the suit were promoted to the
posts of Line-Superintendents.
The case of the plaintiff in short is that
the plaint if respondent Ravinder Kumar Sharma joined the service under the
respondent No. 1, Punjab State Electricity Board as a Line-Man on 25th
December, 1969 and he worked as apprentice Line-Man from 29.12.1969 to
28.12.1970 on a fixed salary of Rs. 140 per month. Thereafter he was allowed
regular scale of pay of Rs. 110-330 since the date of his joining as a
Line-Man. The terms and conditions of the service of the LineMen as well as of
the Line-Superintendent are governed by the rules framed by the Punjab
Government in exercise of its powers under Art. 309 of the Constitution of
India which were termed as P.W.D. (Electricity Branch) Provisional Class III
(Subordinate posts) Rules 1952. Subsequently the State Electricity Board came
into being and the Electricity Department came under the administration of the
State Electricity Board.
The Plaintiff has stated in the plaint that
as a Line Man he had been performing his duties efficiently and honestly and
there was never any complaint against his work.
His work and conduct had always been
appreciated by his superiors from time to time. He possesses the following
qualifications:-1. B.A.
2. I.T.I. (in the trade of Electrician 2
year's duration).
3. National Apprentice Certificate in the
trade of Line-Man (3 year's duration).
All the Line-Men under the defendant No. 1,
that is, Punjab State Electricity Board are either diploma holders or I.T.I.
trained or non-diploma holders and they form and constitute one common cadre
known as Line-Man and in the same scale of Rs. 110-330. The seniority list of
all these Line-Men is common and joint. It has been further alleged that
defendant No. 1 had been promoting officials from Line76 Men to the Line-Superintendent
on a pick and choose basis-in consideration of the qualifications by fixing a
quota between the diploma holders and non-diploma holders and this has resulted
in arbitrary discrimination between the diploma holders and non diploma holders
Line-Men thereby adversely affecting the promotional prospect of the
non-diploma holders Line-Men. It has been further stated that this policy of
the defendant No. 1 was set aside by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in L.P.
No. 618, 619 of 1975 fixing the quota between diploma holders and non-diploma
holders Line Superintendents by orders dated 12.1.1965 and 27.6.1974. Though
the minimum qualification for promotion of Line-Man to Line-Superintendent is
however matriculation. The plaintiff also stated that by order dated 12.7. 1977
the respondent No. 1 promoted Gurdial Singh whose name appeared at S. No.
1451 in the common seniority list and also
the defendant Jaswant Singh whose name appeared at S. No. 1546 in the said list
as well as Ramesh Kumar standing at S. No. 2309 in the said seniority list to
the post of Line-Superintendent even though the plaintiffs position in the
seniority list was at S. No. 995 and he was senior to these officials. Thus the
plaintiff was passed over while his juniors were promoted.
This policy of pick and choose, it has been
stated, in promoting the officials is wholly illegal and discriminatory. It has
been further pleaded that by office order No. 899 dated 17.8.1977 the defendant
No. 2, that is, the Chief Engineer of the Electricity Board further promoted
Sudesh Kumar and Virender Kumar whose name stand at S. No. 1877 and 2279 in the
joint seniority list as Line-Superintendent from the Line-Man. The petitioner,
therefore, pleaded that the action of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in fixing the
quota between diploma holders and non-diploma holders Line-Men for the purpose
of promotion to the post of Line-Superintendent and promoting the defendants 3
to 7 to the posts of Line Superintendent from Line-Man is wholly illegal,
unconstitutional and arbitrary. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for a decree
declaring that the orders dated 12.7.1977. and 17.8.1977 promoting the
defendants 3 to 7 are illegal, discriminatory and null and void as it
arbitrarily affects the rights of the plaintiff who is senior to them in not
being promoted to the cadre of Line-Superintendent. The plaintiff also prayed
for a direction that he be promoted to the post of Line-Superintendent from the
date defendant Nos.
3 to 7 were promoted to the said post.
The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 contested the
claim of the plaintiff by filing written statement stating that the terms and
conditions of service of Line-Men and Line-Superintendent are governed by the
rules framed by the Punjab State Government under Art. 309 of the 77
Constitution and are termed as P.W.D. (Electricity Branch) Provisional Service
Class III (Subordinate posts) Rule 1952.
It has been further stated that the State
Electricity Board by office order dated 14.5.1970 prescribed a quota of 5% for
diploma holders Line-Men for promotion to the post of LineSuperintendentThis
quota of diploma holders Line-Men was increased to 20% by the Board by order
dated 2.7.1973. On 9.5.1974 the quota of diploma holders Line-Men for promotion
to the Line-Superintendent was further increased to 33% whereas the quota for
promotion of non-diploma holders Line-Men to the post of Line-Superintendent
was fixed at 33%. It has been stated that according to this quota the defendant
Nos. 3 to 7 have been promoted and the fixation of quota on the basis of
educational qualification cannot be questioned as arbitrary or discriminatory.
After heating both the parties the
Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Patiala, held that the plaintiff was entitled to
promotion to the post of Line-Superintendent and the orders dated 12.7.1977 and
17.7.1977 whereby the defendant Nos. 3 to 7 were promoted even though they were
junior to the plaintiff are illegal and in violation of the rights of the
plaintiff. The suit was decreed and the plaintiff was declared to have been
promoted from the date when his juniors mentioned in the plaint were promoted
to the post of Line Superintendent.
Against this judgment and decree the Punjab
State Electricity Board, Patiala filed an appeal being C.A. No. 4368 of 1982.
The Additional District, Judge, Patiala after heating the parties dismissed the
appeal with costs holding that there was no reasonable nexus by fixing quota
for promoting diploma-holders Line-Men to the post of Line Superintendent even
though the non-diploma holder as well as the diploma holders formed the joint
cadre of Line-Men for promotion to the post of Line-Superintendent. The
judgment of the trial court was affirmed and it was also held that the appeal
was not competent inasmuch as there was no resolution of the board authorising
the filing of the appeal.
The cross objection filed by the
plaintiff-respondent was allowed.
Against this judgment and decree the
defendant Nos. I and 2 preferred an appeal being R.S.A. 254 of 1983. The said
appeal was dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the judgment
and decrees of the court below were affirmed. It is against this judgment and
decree the aforesaid two appeals on special leave petition have been filed in
this Court.
78 The only issue raised in this appeal is
whether the defendant No. 1, that is, the Punjab State Electricity Board is
competent to discriminate between diploma holders and non diploma holders
Line-Men forming the common cadre of Line Men having a common seniority list in
promoting these Line Men on the basis of quota fixed by the order of the State
Electricity Board even though the requisite qualification for promotion for
Line-Man to the post of Line-Superintendent is either the holding of diploma or
certificate for electrical engineering from a recognised institute or the
non-diploma holders having passed one and half year's course in the trade of
Electrician/Line-Man/Wire Man from recognised Industrial Training Institute and
are matriculates and have worked for four years as Line-Man continuously and
immediately before promotion, as has been provided by the office order No.
97/ENG/BET/G-33 dated 22.10.1968 the relevant excerpt of which is quoted herein
below:-"Far Direct Recruitment:
a) Possess 3 years, certificate or diploma
course in Electrical Engineering from any recognised Institute, or a
certificate of having passed the N.'C.C. Test conducted by the State Board of
Technical Education/All India Council for Technical Education.
b) Have passed action of the Institution of
Engineering (India) Exam. with Elementary Electrical Engineering as the
optional paper.
For Pormotion c) (i) Have passed 11/2 years
course in the Electrical Trades of Electrician/Line-Man/Wire-Man from
recognised Industrial Training Institutes and are matriculates and have worked
for 4 years as a LineMan continuously and immediately before promotion.
(ii) Have passed 11/2 years course in the
Electrical Trades of Electrician/Line-Man/Wire-Man from recognised Industrial
Training Institutes and are non matriculates but are capable of preparing
estimates, writing up measurement books accurately, keeping store accounts etc.
and have worked for 4 years as a Line-Man continuously and immediately before
promotion.
79 (iii) Persons holding diploma in
Electrical Engineering of 3 to 4 years duration recruited as Line-Man against
the reservation of 60% fixed for recruitment of persons holding certificate of
11/2 years course in the Electrical Trades of Electrician/Line-Man/Wire-Man from
recognised Industrial Training Institutes, have worked as Lint-Man for 3 years
continuously and immediately before promotion.
On promotion as Line-Superintendent they will
be given weight age of 2 years' service as compared to non-diploma holders, at
the time of fixation of their seniority and pay in accordance with the
instructions contained in Board's Memo No. 88774/84/BET/(33)L dated 29.12.1967.
D (i) Matriculates Line-Man having a total
continuous service of 9 years as at A.L.M. and Line-Man out of which they
should have worked as Line-Man for 4 years continuously and immediately before
promotion'.
(ii) Non-matriculates Line-Man having a total
continuous service of 11 years as A.L.M. and Line-Man out of which they should
have worked as Line-Man for four years, continuously and immediately before
promotion, provided they are capable of preparing estimates, writing up
measurement books accurately keeping store accounts and in addition are
conversant with Consumer Accounts or possess a special experience for
transmission line work.
The State Electricity Board by its order
dated 14.5.1970 introduced the following quota for promotion to the cadre of
Line-Superintendents:
1. Direct recruitment from the open market
62%
2. Diploma holders Line-Men 5% 3. Line Men
non-diploma holders 33%.
This quota of promotion for diploma holders
Line-Man to the pest of Line-Superintendent was further increased by office
order No. 244 dated 2.7.1975 by fixing the quota fox promotion of diploma
holders Line-Men already in Service of the Board from 5% to 20%. Again by
office order No. 78 dated 9.6.1974 the State Electricity Board further
increased the quota of promotion of diploma holders Line-Man already in the
service of the Board from 20% to 33%.
80 There is no dispute, rather it is not
controverted that the position of the plaintiff-respondent in the joint seniority
list of Line-Men in the scale of Rs. 110-330 of the Punjab State Electricity
Board from 1.6.1967 to 31.8.1974 which has been filed as additional document by
the Punjab State Electricity Board in C.A. No. 3341 of 1983 that the
plaintiff-respondent's name was mentioned at S. No. 995 whereas names of
defendant Nos. 3 to 7 appear in the said list in S. Nos. 1451, 1546, 2309, 1877
and 2279 respectively. Therefore all the defendant Nos. 3 to 7 are undoubtedly
junior to the plaintiff-respondent as LineMen in the joint seniority List of
Line-Men comprising of both diploma holders and non-diploma holders Line-Men in
the same cadre. It iS also clear and evident from the office Order No. 97 dated
22.10.1968 that the qualification for promotion to the post of
Line-Superintendent from Line-Men is either holding certificate or diploma in
electrical engineering from any recognised institute or having passed 1-1/2
years Course in the electrical trade of Electrician/Line-Man/WireMan from
reCognised Industrial Training Institute and are matriculates and have worked
as Line-Man for four years continuously and immediately before the promotion.
The petitioner who is an Arts Graduate and have I.T.I. Certificate (in the
trade of electrician 2 years' duration) and also have National Apprentice
Certificate in the trade of Line-Man 3 years' duration is eligible for
promotion to the post of Line-Superintendent as he has fulfilled all the
requisite qualifications. There is no gain saying that all the LineMen either
diploma holders or non-diploma holders are performing the same kind of work and
duties and they belong to the same cadre having a common/joint seniority list
for promotion to the post of Line-Superintendent. The orders dated 12.7.1977
being order No. 73 promoting defendant Nos.
3, 4 and 5 as well as office order No. 898
dated 17.8.1977 promoting defendant Nos. 6 and 7 on the basis of quota from
diploma holders as fixed by the order of the State Electricity Board dated
9.5.1974 is wholly arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and violative of the
equality clause Contained in Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
inasmuch as it purports to promote defendant Nos. 3 to 7 who are admittedly
junior to the respondent No. 1 in service as Line-Man in the State Electricity
Board. It has been rightly held by following the decision in Shujat Ali's case
[1975] 1 S.C.R 449 at 480 that the promotion of defendant Nos. 3 to 7 who are
admittedly junior to the plaintiffrespondent in the service as Line-Man to the
post of Line-Superintendent are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and so
bad. It is pertinent to refer to the observations of this Court in the said
case which read as follows:
81 "But where graduates and
non-graduates are both regarded as fit and, therefore, eligible for promotion,
it is difficult to see how, consistently with the claim for equal opportunity
any differentiation can be made between them by laying down a quota of
promotion for each and giving preferential treatment to graduates over
non-graduates in the matter of fixation of such quota. The result of fixation
of quota of promotion for each of the two categories of Supervisors would be
that when a vacancy arises in the post of Assistant Engineer, which, according
to the quota is reserved for graduate Supervisors, a non-graduate Supervisor
cannot be promoted to that vacancy, even if he is senior to all other graduate
Supervisors and more suitable than they. His opportunity for promotion would be
limited only to vacancies available for nongraduate Supervisors. That would
clearly amount to denial of equal opportunity to him." This observation
apply with full force to the present case, and it has been rightly held by the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana that the promotion of defendant Nos. 3 to 7
who are junior to the plaintiffrespondent from Line-Man to the post of
Line-Superintendent is wholly bad and discriminatory and directed that the petitioner
be deemed to have been promoted to the post of Line-Superintendent from the
date the said defendants 3 to 7 had been promoted from Line-Man to
Line-SuperintendentIn our considered opinion there is no infirmity in the
judgment of the High Court affirming the judgment and decree of the courts
below. and we agree with the reasonings and conclusions arrived at by the
courts below. The two appeals on special leave are, therefore, dismissed with
costs, quantified at Rs.5000 to be paid by the appellant of C.A. No. 3341 of
1983 to the respondent No. 1.
The Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala
also filed special leave petition (Civil) No. 2693 of 1984 against the judgment
and order dated 14.2.1984 passed in Civil Revision No. 407 of 1984 by the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the Revision Petition. This Revision
Petition was filed against the order rejecting the appellant's application for
correction of the decree. As we have already dismissed the appeals there is no
merit in this special leave petition and the same is accordingly dismissed A. P
.J. Appeals & Petition dismissed.
Back
