LexPUNEET SHARMA & ORS. ETC versus HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. & ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 351 [2021] 4 S.C.R. 351 351 PUNEET SHARMA & ORS. ETC v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. & ANR. ETC. (Civil Appeal No (S). 1318-1322 of 2021) APRIL 07, 2021 [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.] Service Law: Appointment – Eligibility – Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission (HPSSC), acting on the requisition sent by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd., (HPSEB) advertised 222 posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical) – Degree- holders in the concerned discipline approached the High Court in writ proceedings, claiming that since they possessed educational qualifications that were higher than the prescribed minimum (and advertised) qualifications, they could not be denied consideration – The diploma holders opposed this claim, and argued that the qualifications possessed by degree holders was neither higher nor can be considered in teeth of the recruitment rules as also on the basis of the advertisement issued by HPSSC – Eligibility of degree holders for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) under the relevant recruitment rules – Held: The higher post of Assistant Engineer (next in hierarchy to Junior Engineer) has nearly 2/3rds (64%) promotional quota – Amongst these individuals, those who held degrees before appointment as a Junior Engineers are entitled for consideration in a separate and distinct sub-quota, provided they function as a Junior Engineer continuously for a prescribed period – This salient aspect cannot be overlooked; it only shows the intent of the rule makers was not to exclude degree holders from consideration for the lower post of Junior Engineers – In addition to these considerations, an amendment to the rules was made on 03.06.2020 declaring that those with higher qualifications are also entitled to apply or be considered for appointment – This amendment was brought in to clear all doubts and controversies and, in that sense, the amending provisions should be deemed to have been inserted from inception – Thus, respondent HPSEB is directed to process the candidature of all applicants, A B C D E F G H 352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. including the degree holders who participated, and depending on the relative merits, proceed to issue the final selection list of all successful candidates, after holding interviews, etc. Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and Another v. Anit Kumar Das 2020 SCC On Line SC 897; Zile Singh v. State of Haryana (2004) 8 SCC 1 : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 400; Vijay v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 6 SCC 289 : [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 81; Manish Kumar v. Union of India (2019) 8 SCC 416: [2019] 10 SCR 381 – relied on. P.M. Latha & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2003) 3 SCC 541 : [2003] 2 SCR 653; Yogesh Kumar & Ors v. Government of NCT Delhi & Ors (2003) 3 SCC 548 : [2003] 2 SCR 662; State of Punjab v. Anita (2015) 2 SCC 170 : [2014] 14 SCR 819; Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad (2019) 2 SCC 404 : [2018] 14 SCR 1082 – distinguished. Jyoti KK v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2010) 15 SCC 596; State of Uttarakhand and others v. Deep Chandra Tewari and another (2013) 15 SCC 557 : [2013] 17 SCR 1016; Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors (2015) 17 SCC 709 : [2015] 12 SCR 810; Maharashtra Public Service Commission, v. Sandeep Shriram Warade & Ors 2019 (6) SCC 362 : [2019] 7 SCR 94; Zonal Manager, Bank of India Zonal Office, Kochi & Ors v. Aaraya K. Babu & Anr (2019) 8 SCC 587 : [2019] 11 SCR 627; Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission & Ors v. Pawan Thakur 2019 (3) Shim. L.C. 1676; Bhupinder Sharma v. State of HP & Ors (CWP No. 161/2019); Avinash Koundal v. Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission (CWP No. 1155/2020); Govt of A.P. v. P. Dalip Kumar 1993 (2) SCC 310 : [1993] 1 SCR 435; A.K Raghumani Singh & Ors v. Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors 2000 (4) SCC 30 : [2000] 2 SCR 943; CHD v. Usha Kheterpal Waie 2011 (9) SCC 645 : [2011] 12 SCR 398 – referred to. A B C D E F G H 353 Case Law Reference (2010) 15 SCC 596 referred to Para 4 [2013] 17 SCR 1016 referred to Para 4 [2014] 14 SCR 819 distinguished Para 4 [2015] 12 SCR 810 referred to Para 4 [2018] 14 SCR 1082 distinguished Para 4 [2019] 7 SCR 94 referred to Para 4 [2019] 11 SCR 627 referred to Para 4 [1993] 1 SCR 435 referred to Para 5 [2000] 2 SCR 943 referred to Para 7 [2011] 12 SCR 398 referred to Para 7 [2003] 2 SCR 653 distinguished Para 22 [2003] 2 SCR 662 distinguished Para 22 [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 400 relied on Para 33 [20
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.