Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SIRI PAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT09/01/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
SEN, S.C. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC Supl. (1) 361 JT 1995 (1) 451
1995 SCALE (1)198
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. 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.
On 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acquired Degree qualification was withdrawn.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.
3.In 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.
4.The 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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 seniority-cum-merit basis.
Thereafter, 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.
In 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.
Since 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.
5.It 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.
I.A. No. 8/95 Dismissed as withdrawn.
6. All other applications for intervention are dismissed.
454