K B VARADE Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution are employees of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as "the Board", and at the time when the petition was filed they were working in the category of Lower Division Clerks. The first respondent is the Superintending Engineer of the Sangli Circle Office of the Board while the Board itself has been joined as the second respondent in this petition. The other respondents are holding the posts of Upper Division Clerks and the orders appointing them us Upper Division Clerks are the subject-matter of challenge in this petition. The petitioners are seeking appointment as Upper Division Clerks and if some of them have already been appointment as Upper Division Clerks, they are seeking higher seniority in the cadre of Upper Division Clerks above the seniority enjoined by the respondent.

(2.) In order to appreciate the grievance made by the petitioners, it would be necessary to notice the channels of promotion in the establishment of the Board and in particular of the first respondent and also the Rules governing the recruitment, seniority and promotion of the employees of the Board. At the lowest rung of the ladder is the cadre of Lower Division Clerks. Above this cadre is the cadre of the Upper Division Clerks. Thereafter there is the cadre of Assistant Accountants. Above it is the cadre of Divisional Accountants. From the cadre of the Divisional Accountants, a person will move, if he is promoted, to the cadre of Accounts Officer from where his portion is to the post of Joint Chief Accounts Officer. It may be mentioned that apart from promotion, a person may be directly recruited to the relevant cadre subject to certain terms and conditions mentioned in the rules. In this petition, however, we are concerned with the question of moving to the higher cadre by way of promotion and we will confine ourselves to that question.

(3.) Annexed to this petition are several orders passed between 5th of May, 1976 and 8th of August, 1978. Many of these orders are mutually inconsistent or mutually destructive of each other, but ultimately a state of affairs has come into existence with which the petitioners are aggrieved. It is the grievance of the petitioners that they have passed the qualifying examination earlier than many of the respondents and as a result they are entitled to be promoted in preference to the respondents from the posts of Lower Division Clerks to the posts of Upper Division Clerks. The second grievance of the petitioners is that some of them having been promoted earlier than most of the respondent or at any rate many of the respondents, they are entitled to be declared senior in the promoted cadre irrespective of their seniority in the lower cadre. The petitioners have also contended that they had been earlier promoted as Upper Division Clerks in vacancies which were in existence and had worked there continuously for two years or more. They were, therefore, entitled to be confirmed in those posts of Upper Division Clerks and they could not have been reverted to the posts of the Lower Division Clerks in order to make room for some of the respondents. This reversion amounts to reduction in the rank and is hit by Article 311, of the Constitution. These are mainly the grievance of the petitioners and they will have to be examined in the light of the relevant provisions governing the appointment, seniority and promotions of the employees of the Board.