RAMESH PRASAD SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1978] 1 S.C.R. 787 · Decided: 04-11-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

-
.l
787
RAMESH PRASAD SlNGH
l'.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
November 4, 1977
[S. MuRTAZA FAZAL ALI AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ,J:
Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14 and 16--Appellant appointed as an
Executive Engineer ten1porarily by pron1otio11 by rirt11e of his specialised quali-
fication in rhe absence of any rule n1ade prescribillK qualification .. \· for the post
of Execuri1·e En>:ineer-Powers of the a11tliorities in such
cases
fo,
appoint
person~ ID vosts-W'hetfler 11011-consideration of the cases of responden/s 3 re 28
who were niere graduates in Engineerlnlg riolates Arts. 14 and 16.
The appellant, a B.Sc. Engineering degree-holder in
Tcle-Cornmuntcation
was appointed as an Assistant Engineer (Tele-Comn1unication) in September
1963 by the Biha·r State Electricity Board and was sent abroad to the
head-
quarters of Mis. Brown Boveri and Co.
Ltd.,
Badan,
Switzerland
for six
months' specialised training in pov.'er line carrier, telc-metering and tele-control
equipment in the modern power system.
On his
return the
appella_nt
'vas
deptlleJ to look after the entire tele-communicatiOn system of the Board.
ln
June 1968, the Board felt the necessity of maintenance of efficient communica-
tion service between the vital centres of generation, utilisation and administra-
tion for ensuring reliability and continuity in power supply which would facili-
ta-te quick supervision and checking of the then existing arrangements at the
generating stations receiving sub-stations and
distributing
areas as also
the
necessity of proper supervision and handling by trained and qualified personnel
of a large number of wave-change-over communication equlpntents on 33 KW
Transn1ission line which had been installed
in the
Tele-Communication Sub-
Di\·ision of the Board at Patna and were maintained and a-1.igned with the help
of special electronic instruments.
The Board, therefore, accorded <;anction to
the creation of a ten1porary Tele-Communication Division with headquarters at
Pa·!na nnd nlso to the creation of a
temporary
post of Executive Engineer
(Tele-Communication).
As per the
recommendation of its
expert Selection
Committee to the effect that the appellant was fit to be promoted to the rank
of ihe Executive En~ineer (Tele-Communication) in view of the f<lct that he
hnd consistently good record of service, possessed the degree in Tele-Con1mun1-
cation Engineering, had undergpnc special
training in
Switzerland
in Tele-
Co1nmunication. had ever since his return from Switzerland been
~a·tisfactor'1ly
perfo1 ming the onerous and complex duties
assigned to
him and had
been
looking after the entire Tele-Communication
svstem of the
Board and had
1·hu5 aCquired a valuable practical experience in 'that field \1.'hich \\.'?.<> necessary
to man the post of Executive Engineer (Tele-Comn1unication), the
anoeiT.·lnt
wa;; apnointed ten1porarily on promotion to
the post of Executive
Engineer
(Tele-Communication).
Thereupon
respondents 3 to 28
who are Assistant
Electrical Engineers appointed. a-s such. earlier to the appellant challeftg~d the
said appointment in the Patna High Court averring that the promofiori of the
arpellant was n1ala fide; they were seniors to the -appellant and pos<;cssrd the
reauisite qualifications; their cases must h<\ove been
considered hv the Boar{\;
and their superscssion is in violation of guarantee of equality nf ooportunt1v
enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The High Court quashed
the said orders and held that the case of respondents 3 to 28 who \1/ere seniors
to :ind had better experience and academic ca·reer than the appellaiit had been
unju5tifiably i~nored by the Board violating the orotection of equal opportunity
gunianteed under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In appeal by certificate.
respondents 3 to 28 though served did not choose to aonear.
Resoondents 1
and 2 contended : (i) th~t Tele-Communica·tion is a hifJ:hly specialised subject
quite distinct from that of _general
electricity; (ii)
that re5pondeftts 5 to 28
who \Vere merely 'graduates of Science in Electrical -Engineering were not quali·
fied for the post of Executive Engineer (Tele-Communication').
Respondents
A
J)l .
E.
A
B
c
D
E
G
788
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 1 S.C.R.
3 and 4 who had only studied tele-communication as one o(
the
subjects in
their final B.Sc. Engineering Examination also were not equally qualified; (iii)

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.