SIRI PAL versus HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 122 · Decided: 09-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S.C. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SIRI PAL 
v. 
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 
JANUARY 9, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.C. SEN, JJ.J 
· Service Law-Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948-Sec. 79(c}-Revised 
Recrnitment & Promotion Policy-Engineering graduates-Out of tum promo-
tion Policy decision of April 1980 withdrawn March 1981-0ut of tum promo-
C . tions between 1989 and 1991--No one entitled to promotion . 
. The appellant while working as lineman with the Haryana Electicity . 
Board acquired in March 1992 the qualification of A.M.I.E. which is 
equivalent to a B.E. degree. The Board under Sec. 79(C) of the Electricity 
D 
(Supply) Act, 1948 tiad passed a Promotion Policy Resolution dated April · 
22, 1980 which envisaged grant of out of tum promotion to candidates who 
had acquired Degree qualification in Engineering. In M.arch 1981 the said 
promotion policy was withdrawn and the Board decided to grant two 
advance increments to p~rsons holding such qualifications. On the basis 
of the 1980 policy the appellant claitned promotion to the post of Junior 
E 
Engin~r but was granted only two advance increments. 
The appellant's Writ Petition in the High Court was dismissed on 
the ground that on March 12, 1981, the benefit of granting out of tum 
promotion to the candidates who had acquired degree qualification was 
F 
withdrawn. Instead the Board had decided to grant two advance incre-
ments. Accordingly, the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of promo-
ti on. 
Before this Court, the appellant contended that ten persons who had 
secured graduation in the years 1989 to 1991, were. promoted as Junior 
G Engineers. The respondent in its counter affidavit admitted that the 
promotions were given wrongly to some persons. The ten persons. so 
promoted sought to come on record as interveners. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
H 
HELD : 1. Since the policy decision taken in April 1980 was withdrawn 
122 
X: 
...
r-
-">!:. 
~---
~ 
,.. 
1:r 
SIRI PAL v. H.S.E.B. 
123 
in March 1981 no one will be entitled to claim nor be given any promotion A 
out of turn on the basis of a~quiring graduation, be it A.M.I.E. or B.E. 
However, some persons were admittedly promoted but the same was being 
recalled and withdrawn by the Board. In view of the facts and circumstances 
of the case ~o directions need to be given to the Board to consider the case 
of the appellant for out of turn promotion. [124-H, 125-A-B] 
2. If the appellant was eligible under the policy and 60% posts were 
available, the vacancies should be notified by the Board for direct recruit-
ment and the appellant could also apply for being considered at par with 
others for appointment as direct recruit in accordance with rules. [125-C] 
B 
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 722 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.1.94 of the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in C.W.P. No. 15442 of 1993. 
Pannalal Syngal, Franklin David and D.B. Vohra for the Appellant. 
M.R. Sharma, K.K Jain, Ms. Anjana Sheena and Pramod Dayal for 
the Respondents. 
D 
Anant Palli, Dinesh Kumar, Atul Sharma, Ms. Rekha Palli, S.C. E. _ 
Patel, K.K. Mohan and Pradeep Gupta for the Interveners. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
This. appeal arises from the judgment and order of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court dated January 6, 1994, made in CWP No. 15442/93. 
F 
The appellant while working as a Lineman, admittedly, had acquired the 
qualification of AM.LE. which is equivalent to B.E. Degree in March, 
1992. On this basis, he filed a writ petition for out of turn promotion as 
Junior Engineer as envisaged by the Board in its policy dated April 22, G 
1980. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that on March 12, 
1981, the benefit of granting out of turn promotion to the candidates who 
have acquired Degree qualification was withdrawn. Instead the Board had 
decided to grant two advance increments on that basis he was granted two 
advance increments. Accordingly, he is not entitled to the benefit. 
H 
A 
B 
124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995] 1 S.C.R. 
· In special leave petition,alkgation was made that certain persons 
who have secured gradaution in the years 1989 to 1991, were promoted as 
Junior Engineers. Notice was issued to the respondents to show cause why 
the same benefit should not be given to the appellant as well. In the counter 
affidavit filed in this court, it was admitted t~at the promotions were 
wrongly given. Pursuant thereto a direction was issued by t

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