KISHAN CHAND Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AMRITSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present judgment, I propose to dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3294 of 1980,4574 of 1982, and 4048 of 1983 and 5310 of 1984. The facts have been taken from C.W.P. No. 4374 of 1982.

(2.) The petitioner, who had joined as Linesman in the Electricity Department of the Municipal Committee, Amritsar (presently the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar- respondent No. 1) in the year 1949 was promoted as an Assistant Engineer Class-I in October, 1980, in view of the fact that he was a Diploma Holder in Electrical Engineering, whereas respondent No. 2 who is a degree holder was promoted as such on the same date. I has been averred that Assistant Executive Engineers whether Diploma or Degree holder constituted one cadre having a joint seniority performing the same functions and drawing the indentical emoluments. As per the requirement of the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Electrical) Regulations, 1965 (hereinafter called the 'Regulation'-) which are alleged to have been adopted by the Corporation, Assistant Executive Engineers were entitled to be promoted as Executive Engineers provided they fulfilled the qualification given in Regulation 9(8)(b). On the availability of a post of Executive Engineer (Electrical), the petitioner claimed promotion thereto. The matter was considered by the respondent-Corporation and in its resolution dated 4th August, 1982, appended as Annexure P-1 to the petition, it was resolved that respondent No. 2 be promoted as such as there was no post available for the quota of diploma holders. The challenge has been made to the order Annexure P-l on the ground that as the degree and diploma holders constituted one cadre having a common seniority and performing the same funcions, the fixation of quota for promotion from amongst the degree and diploma holder was not warranted and, as such, Regulation 9(8)(b) was liable to be struck down.

(3.) The stand of the respondent is that the petitioner was, in fact, not even a diploma holder and as such his initial appointment as an Assistant Engineer was in fact not warranted. It has also been denied that the Regulations had been adopted by the Corporation and it has been averred that the Corporation being an independent institution could frame and adopt its own policy in the appointment and promotion of its officers. The stand of the respondent in the written statement has been reiterated by their counsel at the time of arguments.