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

PETITIONER: SIRI PAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/01/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. SEN, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (1) 361 JT 1995 (1)   451  1995 SCALE  (1)198

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   Leave granted. 2.   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.  The appellant while working as  a Lineman,  admittedly,  had  acquired  the  qualification  of A.M.I.E. which is equivalent to B.E. Degree in Marcy,  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, 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12, 1981, the  benefit of granting out of turn promotion to the candidates who have acquired  Degree qualification was withdrawn.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. 3.In  special  leave  petition,  allegation  was  made  that certain  persons  who have secured graduation 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, that the  promotions  were  wrongly given.   Pursuant  thereto  a direction  was issued by this Court to find out as  to  what action  was  taken by the Board in  that  behalf  Thereafter proceedings  appear  to have been taken to recall  the  pro- motions given to ten persons.  We are not concerned, at this stage, with regard thereto, with them though they sought  to come on record as interveners. 4.The crucial question, however, is whether the appellant is entitled  to out of turn promotion.  The Board has passed  a Promotion Policy Resolution exercising powers under  s.79(c) of  the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, called ’Revised  Re- cruitment  and  Promotion Policy’.  Paragraph  1.3  of  this Policy relates to the ’Lineman’ to which post the  appellant

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

belongs.  Paragraph 1.3.1 provides that the recruitment will be made from amongst Assistant Linemen working in respective circles on seniority-cum-merit basis.  The post of Assistant Foreman,  as  per  paragraph 1.4.1. is to be  filled  up  by promotion from amongst Linemen on seniority-cum-merit basis. Thereafter,  the Junior Engineers are to be recruited  under paragraph  1.5. Paragraph 1.5.1. provides that 60% posts  of Junior Engineers (Field) will be filled up 453 by direct recruitment out of the persons having three years’ Diploma  in Electrical/  Mechanical/Electronics.   Employees already  in  the  service  of  the  Board  and  possess  the requisite  qualifications  but  working on  lower  posts  on regular basis, will also be eligible for direct recruitment. In  other words, 60% of the posts are available  for  direct recruitment  including  the  persons  who  are  having   the requisite  qualifications and working in the  lower  regular posts.  Paragraph 1.5.3. prescribes promotion from Assistant Foremen.  It postulates that 40% posts will be filled up  by promotion  from amongst the Assistant Foremen on  seniority- cum-merit  basis  and belonging to the category  under  para 1.4.2. above.  Thus it could be seen that for normal channel of promotion a Lineman is entitled to be considered for  the post  of Assistant Foreman and an Assistant Foreman  is  en- titled  to be considered for promotion as  Junior  Engineer. Since  the policy decision, which was taken in April,  1980, was  withdrawn  in March 1981, no one will  be  entitled  to claim  nor be given any promotion out of turn on  the  basis that he had acquired graduation, be it A.M.I.E. or B.E. 5.It  is  seen  that some  persons,  admittedly,  have  been promoted  but  the promotions are being recalled  and  being withdrawn  by  the  Board.   If it  was  a  case  where  the candidates  are allowed to take the benefit, the  appellant, certainly,  would be right in his contention that he  stands on the same footing for consideration.  Since the Board  has already taken action to withdraw the benefit wrongly  given, which would be passed shortly, we cannot give any directions to  the Board to consider the case of the appellant for  out of turn promotion.  Needless to state that if the  appellant is  eligible under the Policy and 60% posts  are  available, the Board should notify the vacancies for direct recruitment and the appellant can also apply for being considered at par with others for appointment as direct recruit in  accordance with  the  Rules.The appeal is  accordingly  dismissed.   No costs. I.A. No. 8/95  Dismissed as withdrawn. 6.   All other applications for intervention are dismissed. 454