http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDPATIALA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SAWINDER SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (3)   194        1996 SCALE  (2)269

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      In Punjab  State Electricity  Board, Patiala & Anr. vs. Ravinder Kumar  Sharma [(1987) (1) SCR 72], the quota system for promotion  was held  to be bad in law. Consequently, the Electricity Board  by its  order  dated  November  14,  1986 extended  the   principle  of   seniority-cum-merit  as  the principle which was reiterated by this Court in C.A..7792/95 @ SLP  (C) No.22179/94 titled Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. vs. Harvinder Singh dated August 24, 1995.      The petitioners  were directed  to consider the case of the respondent  for promotion  as on  November 14,  1986. In this Special  Leave Petition  arising out of RSA No.2415/94, the  High   Court  summarily  dismissed  the  second  appeal upholding the  order of  the appellate  Court. The appellate Court in  its judgment  and decree  dated February  23, 1994 modified  the   triai  Court  decree  and  stated  that  the defendants-appellants  should   consider  the  case  of  the plaintiff for  promotion as on the date it was due and it is for the competent authority to take all the relevant factors into consideration and to decide as to whether the plaintiff was entitled  for promotion.  Further direction was given to dispose it  of within  the specified  time with which we are not concerned.      It is  contended by  Mr. Sodhi, learned counsel for the petitioners that  the date, as envisaged in the judgment, is not relevant  as it  was structurally altered by judgment of this Court  and due  to the  decision taken  by the Board on November 14,  1986 doing  away with  the  quota  system  and introducing the  principle  of  seniority-cum-merit  as  the criteria to  be considered  for promotion  of the candidates like the  respondent. The  direction given  by the appellate Court and confirmed by the High Court, therefore, is not in conformity with  the law  laid down  by this  Court. We find that the construction put up by the Board does not appear to be correct.  The appellate  Court merely  directed to follow

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the relevant  principles and consider whether the respondent would be  eligible or  not as  on the day when it was due to him. In  the light of the law laid down by this Court, it is open to  the petitioners  to consider the case in accordance with the  rules and to pass appropriate order, Therefore, we do not  think it  is a case warranting further expression of any opinion  on the matter as law has already been laid down by this Court.      The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.