Pal Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board & Anr  INSC 19 (9 January 1995)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Sen, S.C. (J)
1995 SCC Supl. (1) 361 JT 1995 (1) 451 1995 SCALE (1)198
This appeal arises from the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated January 6, 1994, made in CWP No. 15442/93. The
appellant while working as a Lineman, admittedly, had acquired the
qualification of A.M.I.E. which is equivalent to B.E. Degree in Marcy, 1992.
this basis, he filed a writ petition for out of turn promotion as Junior
Engineer as envisaged by the Board in its policy dated April 22, 1980. The writ petition was dismissed on
the ground that on March
12, 1981, the benefit
of granting out of turn promotion to the candidates who have acquired Degree
qualification was withdrawn. Instead the Board had decided to grant two advance
increments on that basis he was granted two advance increments. Accordingly, he
is not entitled to the benefit.
special leave petition, allegation was made that certain persons who have
secured graduation in the years 1989 to 1991, were promoted as Junior
Engineers. Notice was issued to the respondents to show cause why the same
benefit should not be given to the appellant as well. In the counter affidavit
filed in this court, it was admitted, that the promotions were wrongly given.
Pursuant thereto a direction was issued by this Court to find out as to what
action was taken by the Board in that behalf Thereafter proceedings appear to
have been taken to recall the pro- motions given to ten persons. We are not
concerned, at this stage, with regard thereto, with them though they sought to
come on record as interveners.
crucial question, however, is whether the appellant is entitled to out of turn
promotion. The Board has passed a Promotion Policy Resolution exercising powers
under s.79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, called 'Revised Re- cruitment
and Promotion Policy'. Paragraph 1.3 of this Policy relates to the 'Lineman' to
which post the appellant belongs. Paragraph 1.3.1 provides that the recruitment
will be made from amongst Assistant Linemen working in respective circles on
seniority-cum-merit basis. The post of Assistant Foreman, as per paragraph
1.4.1. is to be filled up by promotion from amongst Linemen on
the Junior Engineers are to be recruited under paragraph 1.5. Paragraph 1.5.1. provides
that 60% posts of Junior Engineers (Field) will be filled up 453 by direct
recruitment out of the persons having three years' Diploma in Electrical/
Mechanical/Electronics. Employees already in the service of the Board and
possess the requisite qualifications but working on lower posts on regular
basis, will also be eligible for direct recruitment.
other words, 60% of the posts are available for direct recruitment including
the persons who are having the requisite qualifications and working in the
lower regular posts. Paragraph 1.5.3. prescribes promotion from Assistant
Foremen. It postulates that 40% posts will be filled up by promotion from
amongst the Assistant Foremen on seniority- cum-merit basis and belonging to
the category under para 1.4.2. above. Thus it could be seen that for normal
channel of promotion a Lineman is entitled to be considered for the post of
Assistant Foreman and an Assistant Foreman is en- titled to be considered for
promotion as Junior Engineer.
the policy decision, which was taken in April, 1980, was withdrawn in March
1981, no one will be entitled to claim nor be given any promotion out of turn
on the basis that he had acquired graduation, be it A.M.I.E. or B.E.
is seen that some persons, admittedly, have been promoted but the promotions
are being recalled and being withdrawn by the Board. If it was a case where the
candidates are allowed to take the benefit, the appellant, certainly, would be
right in his contention that he stands on the same footing for consideration.
Since the Board has already taken action to withdraw the benefit wrongly given,
which would be passed shortly, we cannot give any directions to the Board to
consider the case of the appellant for out of turn promotion. Needless to state
that if the appellant is eligible under the Policy and 60% posts are available,
the Board should notify the vacancies for direct recruitment and the appellant
can also apply for being considered at par with others for appointment as
direct recruit in accordance with the Rules.The appeal is accordingly
dismissed. No costs.
No. 8/95 Dismissed as withdrawn.
other applications for intervention are dismissed.