LexPUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA & ANR. ETC. versus RAVINDER KUMAR SHARMA & ORS., ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
PATIALA & ANR. ETC.
v.
RAVINDER KUMAR SHARMA & ORS., ETC.
OCTOBER 27, 1986
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950---Articles 14 & 16--State Electricity
Y
Bqard-Service rule-Promotion from post of line men to line
superintendent-Differentiation between diploma and non-diploma
C qualified line men-Fixation of quota on such basis-Held illegal and
(
unconstitutional.
-{__;
Civil Services-P. W.D. (Electricity Branch) Provisional Class Ill
(Subordinate Posts) Rules, 1952-Line· Men to Line Superintendent-
Promotion of-Differentiation between diploma and non-diploma
D hoiders in fixation of quota for promotion-Whether valid and
constitutional.
Plaintiff-respondent Ravinder Komar Sharma joined service as a
Line-Man nnder the respondent-Electricity Board. The terms and con-
ditions of the service of the Line-Man as well as of the Line-Superinten-
E
dent were governed by the P. W .D. (Electricity Branch) Provisional
Class III (Snbordinate posts) Rules 1952. The Line-Man are either
diploma holders or I. T .I. trained or non-diploma holders and they form
and constitute one common cadre known as Line-Man and were in the
same scale of pay. The seniority list of all the Line-Man is common and
joint. By o~der dated 12.7.1977, the respondent-Board promoted Gur-
F
dial Singh, Jaswant Singh and Ramesh Kumar shown in the common
seniority list at S. Nos. 1451, 1546 and 2309 respectively, to the post of
Line-Superintendent even though the plaintiff-respondent's position in
the seniority list was at S. No. 995 and he was senior to the said officials.
By order dated I 7 .8.1977 the Chief Engineer of the respondent-Electri-
city Board further promoted Sudesh Kumar and Virender Kumar
G
whose name stand at S. No. 1877 and 2279 in the joint seniority list. The
Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit alleging that this policy of promotion
from Line-Man to Line-Superintendent on a pick and choose basis by
roong a qnota between the diploma holders and non-diploma holders is
wholly illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary as it adversely affected
the promotional prospect of the non-diploma holders Line-Men and
H
prayed for a decree declaring that the orders dated 12.7.1977 and
72
)t
,.
/~ -
~-\.
-
ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA v. R.K. SHARMA·
7.'
17.8.1977 promoting the defendants 3 to 7 are iUegal, discriminatory A
and null ;md void as it arbitrarily affects the rights of the plaintiff who
is· senior to them and that he be promoted to the post of Line-
Snperintendent from the date defendant Nos. 3 to 7 were promoted.
The defendant Nos. I and 2 contested the claim of the plaintiff
contending that the terms and conditions of service of Line-Man and the B
Line-Superintendent are governed hy the P. W .D. (Electricity Branch)
Provisional Service Class III (Subordinate Posts) Rules 1952 framed by
the State Government under Art. 309 of the Constitution, that the
Electricity Board by various orders prescribed quota for diploma
holders Line-Men for promotion to the post of Line-Superintendent,
that according to this quota the defendant Nos. 3 to 7 have been promo- c
ted and that the fixation of the quota on the basis of educational
qualification cannot be questioned as arbitrary or discriminatory.
The Subordinate Judge First Class decreed the suit, holding that
the plaintiff was entitled to promotion to the post' of Line-Superin-
tendent and the orders dt.12.7.1977 and 17.8.1977 whereby the de-
D
fendant Nos. 3 to 7 were promoted even though they were junior to the
plaintiff are illegal and in violation of the rights of the plaintiff and,
therefore, the plaintiff was declared to have been promoted from the
date when his said juniors were promoted.
E
The appeal filed by the .State Electricity Board was dismissed by
the Additional District Judge holding that there was no reasonable
nexus by fixing quota for promoting diploma-holders Line-Men to the
post of Line-Superintendent even though the non-diploma holders as
well as the diploma holders formed the joint cadre of Line-Man for
promotion to the post of Line-Superintendent. The judgmef!tS and de-
crees of the Courts below were affirmed by the High Court.
F
Dismissing the Appeals and the Special Leave Petition,
HELD: I. There is no dispute, rather it is not controverted that
in the joint seniority list of Line-Men the plaintiff-respondent's name
·was mentioned at S. No. 995 whereas names oExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.