AJIT KUMAR SINGH Vs. M P ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is working as Junior Engineer in the services of the respondent/board, feeling aggrieved by the action of the Board in promoting his juniors, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to the post of Assistant Engineer, has filed the present petition. It is the case, of petitioner that he is a qualified Graduate Engineer and' after passing the Bachelor of Engineer in the discipline of Electrical Engineering, and on the basis of the aforesaid qualification was granted appointment in the Board as Junior Engineer. The petitioner was appointed earlier in point of time and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were admittedly juniors to him as they have been appointed as Junior Engineers subsequent to his appointment on the said post. The aforesaid factual aspect of the matter is not in dispute between the parties. According to the petitioner, in the establishment of respondent/board, Junior Engineers are appointed on the basis of qualifications acquired by them, both Diploma holders and Degree holders are appointed to the said post. It is the case of petitioner that he was a qualified degree holder and was appointed to the post of Junior Engineer after he had acquired the degree. In fact, prior to appointment, he had obtained the degree whereas the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are diploma holders and while in service with the respondent/board, they had obtained the degree. According to the petitioner, as per the circulars dated 26-8-1988, 1-3-1993 and 7-6-1989 as contained in Annexures P-7, P-8 and P-9 respectively, the Board had taken a decision that Junior Engineers who passed degree while in service shall be entitled to promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. It is the case of petitioner that persons like the petitioner who had obtained the degree in Engineer even prior to their appointment and the diploma holders were considered as one class for the purpose of promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Engineer. It is the grievance of petitioner that in the year 1999 vide Annexure P-10, dated 30-11-1999, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were promoted as Assistant Engineer as a result the petitioner, even though senior to them has not been promoted. On the petitioner submitting necessary representation, it has been informed by the Board that as a policy decision, the Board has decided that such of the Junior Engineers who had acquired the Degree in Engineering while in service shall be granted preference than the persons like petitioner who had obtained the degree before entering into service. As the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 had obtained the Degree in Engineering while they were in service, the said benefit has been extended to them and the petitioner who is already a Graduate Engineer before appointment as Junior Engineer cannot be granted the aforesaid benefit. This policy of the Board has been challenged and it is contended by the petitioner that once the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 5 were appointed as Junior Engineer, they all fall under one homogenous class and no further classification in the same cadre is permissible and cannot be done, the action of the Board is discriminatory and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is argued that no nexus is established for the purpose of making such a classification in a homogenous group or grade, and therefore, the promotion of respondent Nos. 3 and 5 are challenged on the ground of being arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE respondent/board has filed a return and even though in the return it was admitted that earlier the Board had promoted the Junior Engineers like petitioners acquiring qualification prior to ntering into the service along with diploma holders to the post of Assistant Engineer but when direct recruitment was not being made to the post of Assistant Engineer, it was found that the number of Junior Engineers who are already in service of the Board are not getting proper incentive and with a view to give incentive to such diploma holders who acquire the higher qualification of Degree in Engineering, a policy decision was taken in the meeting held by the Board on 24-5-1999 wherein it was decided that a separate quota should be fixed for such of the Junior Engineers who acquire the degree in engineering while in service and till such time that such quota is fixed, a decision was taken to give preference in promotion/appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer to such of the Junior Engineers who were diploma holders and who had acquired the degree in engineering while in service and had completed 4 years of continuous service as Junior Engineer. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the Board that this policy decision was taken for the purpose of giving incentives to diploma holder Junior Engineers to acquire higher qualification while in service of the Board, therefore, it is submitted that there is no discrimination in the matter.

(3.) REFERRING to the proceedings of the meeting of the Board as contained in Annexure R-8, dated 24-5-1999, Shri Vivek Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the Board has emphasised that as the purpose of the said policy is to give incentives to the diploma holder Junior Engineers to acquire higher qualification while in service, in that view of the matter the petitioner cannot complain of discrimination. It is submitted by him that Junior Engineers who acquired the higher qualification while in service form a different class and if some benefit is granted to them by way of promotion to the next higher post, the same cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified warranting interference by this Court.