Assam State Electricity Board & Ors Vs. Gajendra Nath Pathak &
Ors [1997] INSC 709 (3 September 1997)
SUJATA
V. MANOHAR, D. P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
D.P. Wadhwa,
J.
Assam
State Electricity Board (for short the Board) is aggrieved by the judgment
dated April 21,1988 of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court giving
directions to the Board to take necessary steps to consider the cases on the
petitioners (now the respondents) for promotion to the higher post. This would
be done within a period of two months of the receipt off this order by them.
Subsequently also, the petitioners (now the respondents) would be treated alike
the junior Engineers for further promotion." There are four respondents
who were petitioners in the writ petition before the Gauhati High School in which the aforesaid direction was issued.
The
Board is constituted under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (for short' the
Act'). In the exercise of powers conferred upon it under Section 79(c) of the
Act it has framed Regulation called " the Assam State Electricity Board
Engineering Service Regulations, 1973 (for short' the Regulation') The
respondents are either matriculate or non- matriculate and are holding
certificates and were appointed by the Board during the period from 1957 to 1963
to the Subordinate Engineer Grade II. Prior to the Regulation, there existed a
cadre of Subordinate Engineer Grade I which was composed of (i) Direct
Recruitment of not less than 85% of the cadre I, who have passed the H.S.S.L.C
examination (now it is H.S.S.L.C. (10+2) and posses 3/4 years diploma in
Electrical/Mechanical Civil Engineering from any engineering institute recognised
by the Government; and (ii) Such promotees from the rank of Subordinate
Engineer Grade II and other rank subject to 15% of the post of Subordinate
Engineer Grade I.
A
direct recruit to subordinate Engineer grade it must have passed the H.S.L.C.
Examination and possessed a 2 year National Trade Certificate or equivalent
from an institute recognised by the State Government. After the Regulation came
into force candidates who were diploma holders in the Subordinate Engineer
Grade I were designated as Junior Engineer. Under clause (vii) of Regulation 2
of the Regulation "Junior Engineer" means a Subordinate Engineer
Grade I who is at least a matriculate and who possesses a 3 or 4 years diploma
in Civil/Mechanical/Electrical Engineering from a recognised Institute and who
has been designated appointed as such. Under clause (xii) "Subordinate
Engineer Grade-I" means Overseers Grade-I, computers, Draftsman Grade-I,
Foreman Grade-I (Electrical/Mechanical and Civil) and holders of such other
posts as may be specified by the Board from time to time.
The
Regulation also prescribed promotional avenues for Junior Engineers who were
earlier in Subordinate Engineer Grade-I and were diploma holders. The
respondents who were not diploma holders were left out and they who were
recruited in Subordinate Engineer Grade II would be promoted to Subordinate
Engineer Grade I and then to Foreman. Junior Engineers could go up even to
become Executive Engineers.
During
the course of arguments we were told that after 1968 no certificate holder has
been appointed in the service of the Board and there has not also been any
direct recruitment to Subordinate Engineer Grade II from May 3,1971. By the impugned judgment the High Court has equated
the certificate holders to diploma holders and directed that they be promoted
alike the Junior Engineers to go up to the rank of executive engineer. This the
High Court could not do in the face of the statutory rules the validity of
which was never under challenge. As a matter of fact it was not the prayer of
the respondents in the writ petition. What they sought was for cancelling,
recalling or otherwise forbearing the Board to give effect to the Memos dated
19.1.73, 20.8.82, 27.3.82, 24.5.82 and 11.8.82.
In the
first memo dated January 19,1973 it was mentioned that the Board had decided to
introduce a new cadre of posts with the designation of Junior Engineer with
effect from January 1,1973 and prescribing scale of pay for this cadre. it was
mentioned that the scale would be admissible to those incumbents who were at
least matriculate and who possessed three or four years diploma in civil,
electrical, mechanical engineering or having higher qualification. The existing
subordinate engineers Grade-i possessing the above qualification were
automatically to be fitted in the scale mentioned in the memo an designated as
Junior Engineer with effect from January 1,1973 unless any one of them opted to retain his existing pay
scale. In the second memo dated August 20, 1980 again issued by the Board certain channel of promotion was
introduced for "blind alley" posts and to improve the existing
channel of promotion where promotional avenues were not many. In the third Memo
dated March 27, 1982 the Board accepted the principle of fitting in the promotee
Assistant Engineers/SDOs possessing minimum qualifications matriculate with 3/4
years diploma in electrical/mechanical/civil engineering in the rank of
Assistant Engineer with a pay- Scale higher than that prescribed for Assistant
Engineers.
4th
memo dated May 24,1982 is a letter from personnel Manager of the Board to the
Chief Engineer(E) of the Board informing him that the cadres of subordinate Engineers
Grade-I (Subordinate Engineer Grades II and III) could not be equated with
Subordinate Engineer Grade-I was a diploma holder and that in the Board such
Subordinate Engineers who held diploma of a 3 years were redesignated as Junior
Engineers in 1973. It was pointed out that after 1973 a subordinate Engineer
Grade I in the Board did not possess diploma while in the corresponding Grade
in the State of Subordinate Engineers grade I an employee did posses diploma
qualification. 5th memo is also a letter dated August 11,1982 from the office
of the Chief Engineer (Electrical) of the Board to its Executive Engineer
referring to the letter dated May 24, 1982 pay of the first respondent be refixed
in Subordinate Engineer Grade I with effect from January 1, 1973 and excess
amount already paid to him due to irregular fixation of his pay be recovered.
It will be noticed that the first respondent though matriculate was a
certificate holder and joined as Subordinate Engineer Grade- II and promoted to
Grade-I.
It will
be thus seen that the relief granted by the High Court went beyond the prayer
made by the respondents in their petition. Be that as it may a classification
on the basis of qualification that is between diploma holders and non diploma
holders or between diploma holders and graduate engineers is a valid
classification and the High Court could not have wiped out the distinction
among the employees possessing different qualifications. We do not think it was
right for the High Court to Observe that since it was not informed of the
benefit of knowing as to why a distinction had sought to be made by the
Regulation between the persons undergoing the certificate course in ITI and
those who had obtained diplomas by undergoing 3/4 years course and thus a mere
nomenclature of diploma holder and non-diploma holder would make any
difference.
The
law is quite well settled by the various decisions of this court that
classification on the basis of qualification is valid and in fact this was not
disputed by the respondents.
The
appeal is accordingly allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set
aside and the writ petition filed by the respondents is dismissed. There will
be no order as to costs .
Back