j
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PATIALA AND ANR.
A
v.
SAWINDER SINGH
FEBRUARY 2 1996
[ K. RAMASWAMY AND GB. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
B
Se1Vice Law:
Promotion-Employees of Punjab State Electlicity Board-Q,uota sys-
tem. held bad in law-Electlicity Board extending the plinciple of smiolity-
C
cwn-merit-<:onstntction put up by the Board not C01Tect-Appellaie Court
merely directing to consider whether the particular employee would be eligible
or not as on the date promotion was due to him-Open to the Board to
consider the case in accordance with ntles, the law laid down in this regard
and Pass appropriate order.
Punjab State Elect1icity Board, Patiala and Anr. v. Ravinder Kumar
Sharma, [1987] 1 SCR 72, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave petition (C)
No. 4182 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.1.95 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 2415 of 1994.
R.S. Sodhi for the Petitioners.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
D
E
F
In Punjab State Electlicity Board, Patiala and Anr. v. Ravinder Kumar
Shanna, [1987] 1 SCR 72, the quota system for promotion was held to be G
bad in law. Consequently, the Electricity Board by its order dated Novem-
ber 14, 1986 extended the principle of se~iority-cum-merit as the principle
which was reiterated by this Court in C.A. 7792/95 @ SLP (C) NO.
22179/94 titled Punjab State Elect1icity Board & Anr. v. Ha1vinder Singh,
dated August 24, 1995.
H
85
A
B
c
86
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] 2 S.C.R.
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 in trial
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 considera-
tion 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 con-
D sidered 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 the relevant .principles and
E 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 expre~sion of any opinion on the matter as law has
F
already been laid down by this Court.
The Special Leave Petition is. accordingly dismissed.
G.N.
Petition dismissed.
>-
-
Lex