Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDPATIALA & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SAWINDER SINGH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/02/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (3) 194 1996 SCALE (2)269
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
In Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & Anr. vs.
Ravinder Kumar Sharma [(1987) (1) SCR 72], the quota system
for promotion was held to be bad in law. Consequently, the
Electricity Board by its order dated November 14, 1986
extended the principle of seniority-cum-merit as the
principle which was reiterated by this Court in C.A..7792/95
@ SLP (C) No.22179/94 titled Punjab State Electricity Board
& Anr. vs. Harvinder Singh dated August 24, 1995.
The petitioners were directed to consider the case of
the respondent for promotion as on November 14, 1986. In
this Special Leave Petition arising out of RSA No.2415/94,
the High Court summarily dismissed the second appeal
upholding the order of the appellate Court. The appellate
Court in its judgment and decree dated February 23, 1994
modified the triai Court decree and stated that the
defendants-appellants should consider the case of the
plaintiff for promotion as on the date it was due and it is
for the competent authority to take all the relevant factors
into consideration and to decide as to whether the plaintiff
was entitled for promotion. Further direction was given to
dispose it of within the specified time with which we are
not concerned.
It is contended by Mr. Sodhi, learned counsel for the
petitioners that the date, as envisaged in the judgment, is
not relevant as it was structurally altered by judgment of
this Court and due to the decision taken by the Board on
November 14, 1986 doing away with the quota system and
introducing the principle of seniority-cum-merit as the
criteria to be considered for promotion of the candidates
like the respondent. The direction given by the appellate
Court and confirmed by the High Court, therefore, is not in
conformity with the law laid down by this Court. We find
that the construction put up by the Board does not appear to
be correct. The appellate Court merely directed to follow
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
the relevant principles and consider whether the respondent
would be eligible or not as on the day when it was due to
him. In the light of the law laid down by this Court, it is
open to the petitioners to consider the case in accordance
with the rules and to pass appropriate order, Therefore, we
do not think it is a case warranting further expression of
any opinion on the matter as law has already been laid down
by this Court.
The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.