http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GAJENDRA NATH PATHAK & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/09/1997

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D. P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T D.P. Wadhwa, J.      Assam State  Electricity Board (for short the Board) is aggrieved  by  the  judgment  dated  April  21,1988  of  the Division Bench  of the  Gauhati High Court giving directions to the  Board to  take necessary steps to consider the cases on the  petitioners (now  the respondents)  for promotion to the higher  post. This  would be done within a period of two months of  the receipt  off this order by them. Subsequently also, the petitioners (now the respondents) would be treated alike the junior Engineers for further promotion." There are four respondents  who were  petitioners in the writ petition before the  Gauhati  High  School  in  which  the  aforesaid direction was issued.      The Board is constituted under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948  (for short’  the Act’). In the exercise of powers conferred upon  it under  Section 79(c)  of the  Act it  has framed Regulation called " the Assam State Electricity Board Engineering  Service   Regulations,  1973  (for  short’  the Regulation’)      The  respondents   are  either   matriculate  or   non- matriculate and  are holding certificates and were appointed by the  Board during  the period  from 1957  to 1963  to the Subordinate Engineer  Grade II.  Prior  to  the  Regulation, there existed  a cadre of Subordinate Engineer Grade I which was composed of           (i)  Direct Recruitment of not      less than  85% of  the cadre I, who      have    passed     the    H.S.S.L.C      examination (now  it is  H.S.S.L.C.      (10+2) and posses 3/4 years diploma      in   Electrical/Mechanical    Civil      Engineering  from  any  engineering      institute   recognised    by    the      Government; and      (ii) Such promotees  from the  rank      of Subordinate  Engineer  Grade  II      and other  rank subject  to 15%  of      the post  of  Subordinate  Engineer      Grade I.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    A direct  recruit to subordinate Engineer grade it must have passed  the H.S.L.C. Examination and possessed a 2 year National Trade  Certificate or  equivalent from an institute recognised by  the State  Government. After  the  Regulation came into  force candidates  who were diploma holders in the Subordinate Engineer  Grade  I  were  designated  as  Junior Engineer.  Under   clause  (vii)  of  Regulation  2  of  the Regulation "Junior  Engineer" means  a Subordinate  Engineer Grade I  who is at least a matriculate and who possesses a 3 or   4    years   diploma   in   Civil/Mechanical/Electrical Engineering from  a recognised  Institute and  who has  been designated   appointed   as   such.   Under   clause   (xii) "Subordinate  Engineer  Grade-I"  means  Overseers  Grade-I, computers,    Draftsman     Grade-I,     Foreman     Grade-I (Electrical/Mechanical and  Civil) and holders of such other posts as  may be  specified by  the Board from time to time. The  Regulation  also  prescribed  promotional  avenues  for Junior Engineers  who were  earlier in  Subordinate Engineer Grade-I and  were diploma  holders. The respondents who were not  diploma  holders  were  left  out  and  they  who  were recruited in Subordinate Engineer Grade II would be promoted to Subordinate  Engineer Grade I and then to Foreman. Junior Engineers could  go up  even to  become Executive Engineers. During the  course of arguments we were told that after 1968 no certificate  holder has  been appointed in the service of the Board and there has not also been any direct recruitment to Subordinate  Engineer Grade  II from  May 3,1971.  By the impugned judgment the High Court has equated the certificate holders  to  diploma  holders  and  directed  that  they  be promoted alike  the Junior Engineers to go up to the rank of executive engineer.  This the High Court could not do in the face of  the statutory rules the validity of which was never under challenge.  As a  matter of fact it was not the prayer of the  respondents in  the writ  petition. What they sought was for  cancelling, recalling  or otherwise  forbearing the Board to  give effect  to the  Memos dated 19.1.73, 20.8.82, 27.3.82, 24.5.82 and 11.8.82.      In  the   first  memo  dated  January  19,1973  it  was mentioned that  the Board  had decided  to introduce  a  new cadre of  posts with the designation of Junior Engineer with effect from  January 1,1973 and prescribing scale of pay for this cadre.  it  was  mentioned  that  the  scale  would  be admissible to those incumbents who were at least matriculate and who  possessed three  or four  years diploma  in  civil, electrical,  mechanical   engineering   or   having   higher qualification. The  existing subordinate  engineers  Grade-i possessing the  above qualification were automatically to be fitted in  the scale  mentioned in the memo an designated as Junior Engineer  with effect  from January 1,1973 unless any one of  them opted  to retain his existing pay scale. In the second memo  dated August 20, 1980 again issued by the Board certain channel  of  promotion  was  introduced  for  "blind alley"  posts   and  to  improve  the  existing  channel  of promotion where  promotional avenues  were not  many. In the third Memo  dated March  27, 1982  the  Board  accepted  the principle   of    fitting   in    the   promotee   Assistant Engineers/SDOs possessing minimum qualifications matriculate with  3/4   years  diploma   in  electrical/mechanical/civil engineering in  the rank  of Assistant  Engineer with a pay- Scale higher  than that  prescribed for Assistant Engineers. 4th memo  dated May  24,1982  is  a  letter  from  personnel Manager of  the Board  to the Chief Engineer(E) of the Board informing him  that  the  cadres  of  subordinate  Engineers Grade-I (Subordinate  Engineer Grades  II and III) could not be equated  with Subordinate  Engineer Grade-I was a diploma

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

holder and  that in the Board such Subordinate Engineers who held diploma  of a  3  years  were  redesignated  as  Junior Engineers in  1973. It  was pointed  out that  after 1973  a subordinate Engineer  Grade I  in the  Board did not possess diploma while  in the  corresponding Grade  in the  State of Subordinate Engineers grade I an employee did posses diploma qualification. 5th  memo  is  also  a  letter  dated  August 11,1982 from  the office  of the Chief Engineer (Electrical) of the  Board to  its Executive  Engineer referring  to  the letter dated  May 24,  1982 pay  of the  first respondent be refixed in  Subordinate Engineer  Grade I  with effect  from January 1, 1973 and excess amount already paid to him due to irregular fixation  of his  pay be  recovered.  It  will  be noticed that  the first  respondent though matriculate was a certificate holder and joined as Subordinate Engineer Grade- II and promoted to Grade-I.      It will  be thus  seen that  the relief  granted by the High Court went beyond the prayer made by the respondents in their petition.  Be that  as it  may a classification on the basis of  qualification that  is between diploma holders and non diploma  holders or between diploma holders and graduate engineers is a valid classification and the High Court could not have  wiped out  the  distinction  among  the  employees possessing different  qualifications. We do not think it was right for  the High  Court to  Observe that since it was not informed of  the benefit  of knowing as to why a distinction had sought  to be made by the Regulation between the persons undergoing the  certificate course  in ITI and those who had obtained diplomas  by undergoing 3/4 years course and thus a mere nomenclature  of diploma  holder and non-diploma holder would make any difference.      The law  is quite well settled by the various decisions of  this   court  that   classification  on   the  basis  of qualification is  valid and in fact this was not disputed by the respondents.      The  appeal   is  accordingly   allowed,  the  impugned judgment of  the High  Court  is  set  aside  and  the  writ petition filed  by the  respondents is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs .