MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION NAGPUR Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioners pray that the order dated 11th May, 1966 appointing the second respondent Shri S.S. Ghisad, as an Executive Engineer, be quashed, and that the second respondent be restrained from acting as Executive Engineer of the first respondent. Petitioner No. 1 is an association of Engineers employed by the first respondent, i.e., the Maharashtra State Electricity Board The second and the third petitioners are employees of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board and also members of the Association. The first respondent, the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, is a statutory corporation constituted under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (Central Act No. 54 of 1948). The first respondent issued an advertisement in newspapers, inviting applications for the post of Executive Engineers (E. and M.) in the Board. Annexure A to the petition is a copy of that advertisement. The advertisement was in respect of several posts to be filled including that of Executive Engineers (E. and M.). Applications were to be made on or before 10th December 1965. In the advertisement calling applications for the post of Executive Engineers the qualifications and the requirements of experience as well as conditions of age limit have been given. For the post of Executive Engineer (E. and M.), the following conditions and requirements of the candidates were advertised : -

(2.) PETITIONER No. 2 Shri R.C. Gupta has been serving with the respondent No. 1 Board since about 7 years as a Deputy Executive Engineer, Testing Division. 'Petitioner No. 3 Shri S.P. Shinde, who is a graduate in Engineering (Electrical) from Usmania University, was appointed as a Junior Engineer with the Board in 1961 and has since been promoted and was serving as an Assistant Engineer when the advertisement was issued. Petitioner No. 2 Shri R.C. Gupta had made an application for being considered for the post of Executive Engineer advertised by the Board; apparently, he sent his application through his superior officers as be was already serving in the department with respondent No. 1 Board. Petitioner No. 2 was not called for interview, nor was any intimation given to him about his application. The third petitioner Shri Shinde did not apply at all, but according to Shri Shinde he did not make any application for the post as he had only 5 years experience to his credit, whereas the minimum period of experience as per advertisement was not less than 7 years. He has also alleged that in view of the specific regulations by which the recruitment is governed, he did not consider himself eligible to make the application because of the condition of minimum experience.

(3.) SEPARATE returns have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 resists the petition on several grounds. According to it, the petition under Article 227 is not tenable because the order of appointment is not a judicial or quasi -judicial order. But this objection is no longer tenable as the petition is also under Article 226 of the Constitution.The first respondent also disputes the right of the first petitioner which is an Association, to file petition as it is not a juristic person. As regards the grievance of the second petitioner, the case of the first respondent is that there was no bar to either of the petitioners 2 and 3 making an application. According to the regulations for filling of posts, framed by the Board, out of 4 posts, 3 posts are reserved for departmental candidates and though the fourth vacancy is to be filled by direct recruitment, in the case of a post of Executive Engineer, the departmental candidates are also eligible to make application for the fourth post. But in case of departmental candidates their applications are to be forwarded by their superiors because the Board could not otherwise have any data or record in respect of these candidates, and it is for the superior officers of the departmental candidates to speak about the calibre, work, initiative, etc., of the departmental candidates while forwarding their applications. The applications of the departmental candidates could be forwarded for being considered for appointment to higher posts if the superior officer found that they are suitable and deserving. Even if the departmental candidate - did not have the requisite experience or qualification for the post, these deserving departmental candidates, who had a chance or whose applications could be considered by the Selection Committee, have not been shut out from consideration by the Selection Committee. Their specific case is that the application of petitioner No, 2 was forwarded by the superior officer but without any recommendation, and so the appointing authority did not think him suitable. As regards the third petitioner, the case of the Board is that he was not prevented from making an application as he was aware of the regulations and the recruitment rules. In fact, respondent No. 1 has stated that there was no specific bar either in the regulations or in the rules for candidates who had less experience to apply for the posts. As petitioner No. 3 did not apply at all, he could have no grievance and petition at his instance is therefore not tenable. As regards the actual selection of the second respondent and the appointment made by the Board, it is alleged that he was a very superior candidate having had a brilliant career and having secured First Division at all examinations and having secured 73 per cent marks in the B. E. (Hons.) Electrical Engineering Examination in the First Class. So far as experience of the second respondent was concerned, he was promoted in the organisation in which he was employed within a short period of service of three years, and the charge he held in the company of repute was taken into consideration by the Selection Committee. So far as the satisfaction of the condition regarding experience is concerned, the Selection Committee had a right to select a candidate on relaxing the condition required by defendant No. 1 Board, and having exercised their discretion in recommending relaxation of the condition of experience, there was no infringement of any regulation or right as claimed by any of the petitioners.