R PARTHASARATHI Vs. A P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these two writ petitions, eight in number, are employees of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short "The Board") and are working as Additional Assistant Engineers (Civil). They ch allengc the proceed ings of the Board, the first respondent, herein, in B.P.Ms.No.223 dated 3-8-1991. promoting respondents 5 to 49 in W.P.No. 10195 of 1991, who were also working as Assistant Engineers/Additional Assistant Engineers, to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers (Civil), as arbitrary, illegal and violativc of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and seek a consequential direction to the first respondent to promote them as Assistant Executive Engineers by relaxing the requirement of qualifying service on par with respondents 5 to 49

(2.) The petitioners were initially appointed as Draughtsman of the Board some time in 1988 and were regularised in 1989 Respondents 5 to 23 are Engineering graduates. They were directly appointed as Assistant Engineers by the Board Writ Petition No.10195 of 1991 was not pressed against respondents 5 to 23.therefore, it would not be necessary to refer to them any more in the course of this judgment. Respondents 24 to 49 (hereinafter referred to as "the contesting respondents") are diploma-holders. They were appointed as Additional Assistant Engineers (Civil) in Irrigation Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and were sent on deputation to the Board. At their request, they were absorbed in the service of the Board by orders issued by the Board in B.P.Ms.No 1352 dated 28-12-1989. The grievance of the petitioners is that though by virtue of the said orders respondents 24 to 49 are placed below the petitioners in the seniority' list, yet ignoring the seniority, they were illegally and arbitrarily promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers by proceedings of the Board in B.P.Ms.No. 1523 dated 3-8-1991. It is this order that is questioned in these writ petitions.

(3.) A common counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. It is admitted that the petitioners are working as Additional Assistant Engineers (Civil) with effect from 14-3-1988 and that their probation was declared on 1-8-1989. It is stated that the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers (Civil) are filled up from among the eligible candidates working in the cadre of Assistant Engineers (Civil) and Additional Assistant Engineers (Civil) in the ratio of 4:1 It is clarified that the persons who were working as Assistant Engineers should possess degree in Engineering whereas those working as Additional Assistant Engineers are holders of Diploma in Engineering. It is admitted that 40 Additional Assistant Engineers (Civil) belonging to Irrigation Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh who were working on deputation with the Board were absorbed subject to certain terms and conditions mentioned in B.P.Ms.No. 1352 dated 28-12-1989 and accordingly respondents 24 to 49 were placed below the petitioners in the inter-se seniority list of Additional Assistant Engineers (Civil) prepared by the Board. The recruitment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) is governed by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service Rule Part III. The appointment to that post can be either by direct recruitment or by promotion and the ratio between Assistant Engineers (Civil) and Additional Assistant Engineers (Civil) is 4:1. Under the rules, for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers (Civil), the Assistant Engineers should have five years of service and the Additional Assistant Engineers should have ten years of service. Having regard to the large number of vacancies, the Board relaxed the condition relating to length of service by one year which was applicable to both Assistant Engineers as well as Additional Assistant Engineers. The Departmental Promotion Committee met on July 27, 1991 and considered the cases of all the candidates, recommended the promotion of respondents 5 to 48 and accordingly they were promoted as Assistant Executive Engineers; the 49th respondent was not promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer. The petitioners do not satisfy the requirements prescribed for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) as they were not having the required length of service, therefore they were not promoted as Assistant Executive Engineers. Respondents 24 to 48 had put in the required length of service as Additional Assistant Engineers and they were eligible, as such they were promoted as Assistant Executive Engineers. Merely because they were placed below the first petitioner in the inter-se seniority list after their absorption in Board's service, the sen-ices rendered by them as Additional Assistant Engineers with the Board could not be ignored while considering their eligibility for promotion Since the petitioners were working only from 1988 as Additional Assistant Engineers and did not fulfil the scn-icc eligibility criteria, they were not promoted as Assistant Executive Engineers. In the circumstances, it is prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed.