LexMEGHALAYA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. versus THULESWAR BARBARUAH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
MEGHALA YA STA TE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.
B
c
v.
THULESWAR BARBARUAH & ORS.
NOVEMBER 24, 2006
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]
Service law:
Meghalaya State Electricity Board (Service) Regulations, 1996:
Regulation '37(3)-Promotion-Orders of promotions challenged on
the ground that in previous year when the writ petitioners became eligible,
DPC was not convened-Held, only because there exists a provision for
convening a DPC every year, the same by itself would not mean that DPC
D was required to be convened irre-spective of the fact whether any vacancy
arose or not.
Respondents joined service of the Assam Electricity Board. In the year
1975, they were placed with the appellant-Board. The appellant framed the
Meghalaya State Electricity Board (Service) Regulations, 1996. Regulation
E 37(3), as amended from time to time, provided that a list of qualified and eligible
employees equal to three times the number of vacancies plus one of both
existing vacancies and those estimated to arise upto 31st December of the
year would be prepared. For filling lO vacancies of Executive Engineers, of
the year 2002, in all 28 candidates including the respondents were found
eligible and qualified for consideration. Ultimately, on the basis of the
F recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, order of promotion
was issued on 15.1.2003. Respondents no. 1 to 3 who were holding the posts
of Assistant Executive Engineer, and whose names did not find place in the
order of promotion filed a writ petition. The Single Judge of the High Court
dismissed the writ petition holding that orders of promotion did not become
G vitiated only because no DPC was held in the year 2000-2001, as the vacancies
arose only in the year 2002. However, the Division Bench allowed the appeal
of the respondents. Aggrieved, the Board filed the present appeal.
Allowing t1.1e appeal, the Court
H
508
MEGHALAYASTATEELECTRICITYBOARD1·. THULESWARBARBARUAH[S.B.SINHA,J.] 509
HELD: 1.1. The seniority list of the respondents, vis-a-vis, those A
candidates who are selected, is not in dispute. It is furthermore not in dispute
that all the 28 candidates, whose cases were considered by the DPC, were
qualified therefor. They had acquired the minimum eligibility criteria, as
provided for in the Regulations, in 1998. The Single Judge arrived at a finding
of fact that vacancies arose in the year 2002. If vacancies arose in 2002, a' B
fortiori the DPC was required to be reconvened only in that year. Only because
there exists a provision for convening a Departmental Promotion Committee
every year, the same by itself would not mean that the same was required to
be convened irrespective of the fact as to whether any vacancy arose or not.
1.2. It may be that in terms of the extant regulations a panel was required C
to be formed, but, the same would not be applicable in the instant case as no
vacancy arose in 2000. The Division Bench of the High Court could not have
interfered with the judgment of the Single Judge without arriving at a finding
that the finding of fact arrived at by the Single Judge in regard to the year in
which the vacancies arose, was wrong. The impugned judgment cannot be
sustained, which is accordingly set aside. 1512-H; 513-A, BJ
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5182 of2006.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.5.2005 of the High Court of
Gauhati, Shillong Bench in W.A. No.6 (S.H.) of2005.
P.K. Goswami, Rajiv Mehta, B. Aggarwal and A. Henry for the Appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
Respondents herein joined services of the Assam State Electricity Board
(the Board). The terms and conditions of their services used to be governed
E
F
by the regulations framed under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 ('the 1948
Act', for short) known as Assam State 'Etectricity Board General Regulations,
1960 ('the 1960 Regulations', for short) and Assam State Electricity Board
Engineering Service Regulation, 1973 ('the 1973 Regulations', for short). G
Regulation 4 of the 1960 Regulations authorised the Board to prescribe the
manner in which the record of services of its employees was required to be
maintained, pursuant whereto the format of ACR and related guidelines were
prescribed. The Board adopted the existing rules, regulations, orders and
procedures of the old Board. On or about 22.1.1975, however, the Government H
510
SUPRExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.