SYRYA NARAIN YADAV & ORS. versus BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 605 · Decided: 08-05-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

605 
SYRY A NARAIN Y ADAV & ORS. 
v. 
BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. 
May 8, 1985 
[S, MURTAZA F~ZAL ALI. A. VARADARAJAN AND RANGANATH 
MISRA, JJ.) 
Service Law-Right to absorption in serrice on the basis of representations 
made-Applicability of the tqultabfe doct1 ine of promissory estoppel to State 
tmp/oyees who, relying on representations and promises made by ihe public body 
have altered their position to their prejudice and detriment-Seniority Assign"1ent 
of, c/arifitd. 
Pursuant to the Respondent Board's advertisement for selection of 
electrical engineers under the "Employment Promotion Programme", the 
appellants and many others joined as Apprentice Engineers with effect from 
April 1, 1977. Though in March 1977 i.e. before their appointments, the 
Board had indicated that the training of six months did not guarantee employ-
ment under the Board, in view of its resolution in August 1977 to fiU on the 
basis of chain system 200 vacant posts of Junior Engineers the·appellants were 
asked to continue as Junior Engineers! Assistant Engineers a5 the case may be 
on existing stipends and were posted to Thermal Power Stations. Since no 
regular appointments were made representations were made to the Board to 
implement the August 1977 resolution without loss of time since some of them 
would become averaged for employment under Government. On 
March 
8, 1979 at a high level meeting it was decided that (i) After completion of one 
year's training (which is October 1979) they will be appointed in the post of 
Assistant Electrical Engineers/Junior Engineers on provisional regular basis; 
(ii) that they will remain on probation for two years and (iii) that during the 
period of probation, if their conduct is found satisfactory and on availability 
of permanent posts and on the basis of inter se seniority in the C'...adre they 
shall be confirmed. The aforesaid decision was published on March 13, 1979 
pointing out further that those trainees who had left training should also 
join at the places of their respective postings latest by March 18, 1979 failing 
which they would not be considered for regular appointments. 
In the meantime, some unemployed Engineers approached the High 
Court at Patna challenging the continuity of the trainee Engineers in the 
employment of the Board. The Board took the stand before the High Court 
that the trainee engineers belonged to a separate class and held ex cadre 
appointme.nts as Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers. The High Court 
took the view that their continuity on ex cadre basis was not open to challenge 
on the ~ro~nd of non-compliance of Rules. In May 1980, these writ petitions 
were dISmissed. llmboldened by the acceptance of their stand by the High 
A 
B 
0 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
606 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1985) SUPPL. S.C,R. 
Court, the Board started exhibiting a negative approach in its treatment 
A 
towards the trainee engineers. Ultimately, the appeliants moved the High 
Court for a direction to the Board to encadre them but failed. Hence the 
appeals by special leave against the decision of the High Court. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : I.I The Bihar State Electricity Board is a statutory authority 
and is •State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. [612 EJ 
2.1 The principle of promissory estoppel has full application to the 
facts of the case. The Board has tried to seek shelter under a set of rules 
framed by it In exercise of the powers vested under section 79 of the Electricity 
(Supply) Act of 1949. The defence of the Board that the trainee Engineers 
continue to serve as Assistant Engineers/Junior Engineers on ex cadre basis 
without seniority and stability of service is ill placed and cannot hold as a 
shield against the application of the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel. 
The records clearly show; (i) the Board did represent to the trainee engineers 
from time to time that after their training was completed, they would be 
absorbed in regular employment of the Board; (2) when some of the engineers 
were getting age-barred for Government employment and had left the Board, 
they were told to come back under the temptation of getting permanently 
en1ptoyed under the Board; (3) when the Board was reeling a strike of its 
employees, these trainee engineers had stood by the Board to keep up the 
generation and distribution of electricity and had been assured of absorption; 
and (4) the Board had deci

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