LexRAKESH RANJAN VERMA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
RAKESH RANJAN VERMA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
v.
-""
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
APRIL 10, 1992
B
[N. M. KASLIWAL AND R. M. SAHAI, JJ.]
,..,
E/ectncity (Supply) Act, 1948: Sections 15 and 78-A.
Bihar State Electricity Board Junior Electrical Enginee~ (General)
c Cadre Rules, 1982-Rule 7-As amended by Notification dated 14.10.1988.
__..
Electricity Board-Recruitment of Junior Electrical Engineers-Panel-
-<
Appointment of some candidates in order of merit-But candidates lower in
merit could not be appointed due to non-availability of vacancies-Appoint-
•
ment of such candidates on the lower post of Operator-Undertaking by them
D that they will not claim in future the post of Junior Electrical Enginee,--Sub-
sequent claim by such candidates and direction by State Government under
Section 78-A to appoint and absorb them in the post of Electrical En-
gineer-Held direction given by State was encroachment on Boards power
under Section JS-Undertaking given by candidates would net estop them
E from being considered for future posts-Direction to fill the posts in the ratio
o/75% by direct recruitment and 25% by absorption as contemplated under
Rule 7.
SeTVice Law-Recruitment-Panel-Filling of vacancies-Mere exist-
ence of vacancies is not sufficient-Employer can decide how many posts are
F
to be filled.
The Bihar State Electricity Board invited applications for.the posts
of Junior Electrical Engineers and on the basis of a written test and oral
J
test prepared a panel of 790 candidates in the year 1984 which was valid
G
for one year. Out of this panel, 447 candidates were appointed according
.,,
to merit but the remaining posts could not be filled due to non-availabllty
of posts. Since the position oUhe appellants was lowerer )n the merit list
they were also not appointed. However, they were appointed against the
vacant posts of Operators, for which the requisite qualifications was
Diploma in Engineering, on their giving a specific un«!ertaking that they
·~
H would not make any claim for appointment as Junior Electrical Engineer.
516
R.R.VERMA~STA1E
517
•
B~ its advertisment dated 29.7.89 the Electricity Board invited applications A
for"the posts of Junior Electrical Engineers which fell vacant later. The
appel~nts made their claim for appointment as Junior Electrical En-
gineers and the State Government issued instructions under Section 78-A
of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 to the Electricity Board to appoint and
absorb them.
B
."
The Electricity Board failed to comply with the State Government's
direction and the appellants filed petitions in the High Court of Patna for
quashing1he advertisement dated 29.7.89 and for a direction to appoint
'
and absorb them in the vacant substantive posts of Junior Electrical
--
Engineers. The High Court dismissed the petitions holding that (i) the c
r
power under Section 78-A is to be exercised by State Government only when .
some questions of policy are involved and it cannot be exercised for
~
directing that a particular individual or a group of persons be appointed
as officers of the Board and; the Board has power to make appointments
under Section 15 and it was not bound to follow the directions of the State D
Government because it would amount to encroachment on its power under
Section 15; (ii) the appellants were appointed as Operators on their
undertaking and at a later stage they could not claim appointment against
the posts of Junior Electrical Engineers; (iii) in view of the amended rule
7 of the Bihar State Electricity Board Junior Electrical Engineer (General)
Cadre Rules, 1982 the appellants could not be absorbed without considera-
E
tion of inter-se merit by Selection Committee.
In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellants
~
that (i) the direction issued by the State Government under Section 78-A
of the Act was on questions of policy and was binding on the Electricity F
Board; (ii) the undertaking given by the appellants cannot deprive them
from being appointed on future vacancies and the undertaking was viola·
-\'.
tive of Ar:ticle 16 of the Constitution; {iii) the posts of Junior Electrical
!I
Engineers were vacant even before the expiry of panel and the Board
should have absorbed the appellants against the aforesaid posts.
G
On behalf of the Electricity Board it was contended that (i) under
section 78-A of the Act the State can issue directions only on questionsExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.