VIJAYAN K Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ appeals are directed against the common order passed in W. P. Nos. 718 and 1136 of 1990 by the learned single Judge dated January 6, 1992 dismissing those writ petitions.

(2.) THE prayer made by the petitioners before the learned single Judge is as follows: "it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass orders, issue directions and writs as may be deemed fit and in particular issue a writ in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the records from the 1st respondent-Tamil Nadu Electricity Board represented by its Chairman relating to B. P. Ms (CH) No. 66, Administrative Branch, dated February 1, 1986 and quash para 4 (iv) of the said B. P. and direct the respondents to promote the petitioners to the cadre of Foreman Grade-I from the seniority list of Assistant Commercial Inspectors in Memo No. AEM/ii/f14/ 645-80-1, dated November 13, 1980 and render justice. "

(3.) THE short facts leading to the filing of these appeals which are relevant for the disposal could be summarised as follows: "the appellants who joined as temporary casual labourers were periodically promoted as helpers and Commercial Assistants. While they were working as Commercial Assistants, a settlement dated February 29, 1980 was entered into between the Tamil Nadu Electricity Workers Federation and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board regarding the work allocation and staff pattern in respect of field workmen in operation and maintenance distribution system. Following the settlement, B. P. Ms. No. 123, dated March 1, 1980 was issued incorporating the terms of the settlement dated February 29, 1980. Prior to the said settlement dated February 29, 1980 and the B. P. 123, there was a common seniority for Wireman and Commercial Assistants, though the post of Wireman is a technical post, whereas the post of Commercial Assistant is a non-technical post. From the common seniority list of Wireman and the Commercial Assistant, promotion was given to the post of Lineman and from there to the post of Line Inspector and then to the post of Foreman Grade-I, prior to B. P. 123. As per the settlement dated February 29, 1980 and B. P. Ms. No. 123, dated March 1, 1980, a new category of Assistant Commercial Inspector was created. By this settlement, the Commercial Assistant would be promoted as Assistant Commercial Inspector and then Commercial Inspector. The posts of Commercial Assistant, Assistant Commercial Inspector and Commercial Inspector are nontechnical posts. Further, through the said B. P. the technical and non-technical posts were separated and the Commercial Assistants were asked to exercise their option either to opt to the line of promotion as Commercial Assistant to Assistant Commercial Inspector and Assistant Commercial Inspector to Commercial Inspector or to the Lineman, Line Inspector and Foreman. In pursuance to the said B. P. 123, dated March 1, 1980, all the Commercial Assistants including the appellants were promoted as Assistant Commercial Inspectors by Memo No. AEM II/a1/f14/645/so-1, dated November 13, 1980. Since there is no indication for promotion chance to the post of Foreman through the Commercial Inspector, the appellants exercised their option to the promotional line of Lineman/line Inspector/foreman expecting that in course of time they would be promoted as Foreman Grade-I. Out of 22 Assistant Commercial Inspectors, 7 persons including the appellants alone had exercised their option to become Lineman. While all the appellants were working as Lineman expecting the promotional chance of Line Inspector, to their shock and surprise, the first respondent-Tamil Nadu Electricity Board issued the impugned proceedings in B. P. Ms. (CH) No. 66, Administrative Branch, dated February 1, 1986, varying the line of promotion in B. P. 123, dated March 1, 1980 by permitting various categories to become Foreman Grade-I including the category of Commercial Inspectors. Thereupon, by using the impugned B. P. the other Assistant Commercial Inspectors who were promoted along with the appellants by the Memo dated November 13, 1980, who are all juniors to the appellants, were promoted as Commercial Inspectors and then posted as Foreman Grade-I. Thus, by virtue of the impugned B. P. the Assistant Commercial Inspectors who opted for the line of promotion of Assistant Commercial Inspector to Commercial Inspector, who are juniors to the appellants have been promoted as Foreman and the Assistant Commercial Inspectors like the appellants, who opted for the promotional line of Lineman, Line Inspector and Foreman have to work under them. As a matter of fact, B. P. 123, dated March 1, 1980 and the terms of settlement dated February 29, 1980 did not indicate that the persons who opted for the line of promotion to the Commercial Inspectors also would be promoted as Foreman. If such an indication was there, the appellants would have opted to remain in the promotional line from Assistant Commercial Inspector to Commercial Inspector. Since there was no such provision, while the appellants were promoted as Assistant Commercial Inspectors by the Memo dated November 13, 1980, the impugned B. P. para 4 (iv) was challenged in the writ petitions on the ground that it is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and opposed to the Article 14 of the Constitution. This contention was opposed by the respondents mainly on the ground that the Foreman Grade-I is the next category to Line Inspector/commercial Inspector which deals with all the works in Section Office as well as technical and non-technical with greater responsibility, that the Board proceedings in B. P. Ms. No. 66, dated February 1, 1986 was issued to liberalise the promotion opportunities as well as to ensure promotion to the individuals who are having some minimum field experience in the type of work concerned and that since the appellants had opted for promotion as Lineman/line Inspector, they have no right to claim promotion based on the seniority in the post of Assistant Commercial Inspectors held in the year 1980. After hearing the parties, the learned single Judge upholding the submission made on behalf of the respondents dismissed the writ petitions holding that the appellants having opted to come over to the line of categories of Lineman/line Inspector, have lost their rights to the post of Assistant Commercial Inspector with effect from April 1, 1980 and that just because the chance of promotion for the appellants got reduced comparatively to the Assistant Commercial Inspectors who have opted to the promotional line to the Commercial Inspectors cannot be taken as a ground as an alternative condition of service. "