HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus SOMDUTT UPPAL AND ANR.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 674 · Decided: 17-12-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
.HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 
B 
v. 
SOMDUTT UPP AL AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 17, 1992 
[KULDIP SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.] 
Civil Service-Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Recruitment 
and Promotion Regulations for Ministerial Services of the Board, 1972-Rule 
8, Appendices. A & B - Seniority in the post of Superintendent-Whether on 
C 
the basis of date of passing SAS Examination or on the basis of seniority in 
lower feeding cadre of UDC/Assistant/lntemal Auditors/Head Clerks-Letters 
dated 2.8.1968 and 31.7.1976-Importance of-Applicability of 1973 Regula-
tions. 
The case of the respondent No. 2 (in CANos. 2698-99 of 1992 who 
D was also the appellant in C.A.Nos. 2700-01 of 1992) . before the Central 
Administrative Tribunal was that he was junior as U.D.C. to respondent 
No. I (in all appeals). But he took his examination for the post of the 
.. Superintendent in June 1972 and passed the same on 30.10.1972. After 
·passing the examinatiOn, a meetting of the Departmental Promotion Com• 
E 
F 
mittee ('DPC') was held in which he was· selected and appointed regularly 
in officiatin·g capadty tO the post of Superintendent w.e.f. 6.4.1973~ 
Respondent No. ·2 was also confirmed in the substantive capacity w.e.f. 
1.11.1989: Respondent No~ 1, passed the examination in December 1973. 
He was considered for appointment as Superintendent by the DPC and 
was appointed to that post in officiating capacity w.e.f. 24.8.1974. He was 
appointed in substantive capacity to the said post w.e.f. 7.7.1990. Hence, 
respond~nt No. 2 contended before the Tribunal that he was entitled to 
seniority over respondent No. 1, in the cadre of Superintendents .. 
The Tribunal relying upon two documents - a letter dated 2.8.1968 
(addressed by the Chief Engineer ofthe Department of M.P.P. &. Power of 
G the State Government to the Superintendent on the subject of training) 
and a promotion order dated 31.7.1976 (to the post of Superintendent on 
the cadre of Finance and Accounts Wing of one Narinder Pal Sharma), 
held that the passing of the qualifying examination was not a pre-requisite 
for being promoted to the post of Superintendent and that the letter dated 
H 
2.8.1968 was prior to the coming into operation of the 1972 Regulations. 
674 
., 
•
H.P.S.E.B. v. SOMDUIT UPPAL 
675 
In the two groups of appeals, viz., C.A. Nos'. 2698-99of1992 filed by A 
the 'Board' and C.A.Nos. 2700-01 of 1992 filed by the aggrieved employee 
of the Board, the short point involved in this case was whether the 
seniority in the higher post of Superintendent was to be determined on the 
basis of the date of passing the 'Subordinate Accounts Service' (S.A.S.') 
Examination or on the basis of their seniority in the lower feeding cadre B 
of Upper Division Clerks (UDC)/Assistants/Internal Auditiors/Head 
Clerks. 
Allowing the appeals of the employee, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The promotion to the post of the Superintendent is C 
governed by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Recruitment 
and Promotion Regulations for Ministerial Services of the Board, 1972 
which are made in exercise of powers c~nferred by section 79(c) read with 
Section 15 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The Regulations came into 
force w.e.f. 1.7.1972. [677-B) . 
1.2. To be eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent, the 
employee concerned must have put in a minimum of four years' service as 
UDC/Assistant/lnternal Auditor/Head Cfork at the time of appearing for 
the examination, and he must pass the examination. [677-E] 
1.3. The senionty of an employee in the cadre of Superintendents 
would depend upon the date on which he enters that cadre after satisfying 
the two conditions. The seniority in the lower feeding cadre of UDC .etc. is 
irrelevant for considering the seniority in the cadre of Superintendents 
except when both the eligible employees pass the examination on the same 
D 
E 
date. [677-F] 
F 
1.4. The letter dated 2.8.1968 (addressed by the Chief Engineer to the 
Superintendent) and letter dated 31.7.1976 (the promotion order) are 
int.ernal communications from one officer to another and their contents 
cannot override the express provisions of the Regulations made under the G 
Act. The contents of the letter dated 2.6.1968 at no time were adopted, 
ratified or approved by., the Board. In any case, the said letter cannot 
override the statutory regulations. [678-F,G] 
1.5. In the present case, the examination was taken and the appoint· 
ment 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.