K L BHARDWAJ Vs. P S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole controversy raised in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is, whether the petitioner was entitled to be offered appointment as Assistant Engineer(Electrical).

(2.) The facts are neither in serious dispute nor in a wide compass. The petitioner who possessed a Three Year Diploma in Electrical Engineering was initially appointed as Boiler Operator in the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short 'the PSEB) on March 24,1966. With the reorganisation of the State of Punjab, with effect from November 1, 1966, a separate Board in the name of the Haryana State Electricity Board (for short 'the HSEB) came into being with effect from May 1, 1967. The petitioner was allocated to the HSEB and continued to work there as Boiler Operator. The PSEB advertised some vacancies of Boiler Operators, the pay scale of which was higher than that of the HSEB. The petitioner applied for (P/2) the said post and was selected. He joined as Boiler Operator in the PSEB on May 8,1974 in the pay scale of Rs. 400-650 though admittedly, his initial pay was fixed at Rs. 500/- keeping in view his past experience as Boiler Operator in the HSEB. The PSEB vide its order No. 1185 dated December 6, 1979, Annexure P-l, decided that the officials who possessed 3/4 years diploma in Electrical/Mechanical Engineering and had a minimum of 12 years experience as Technical Subordinates with good record, shall be treated at par with Graduate Engineers to be eligible for direct recruitment as Assistant Engineer/Electrical and Mechanical in the Board.

(3.) On September 7, 1982, the PSEB advertised ninety vacancies of Assistant Engineers/Electrical through national Thermal Power Corporation New Delhi (for short 'the Corporation') vide advertisement, Annexure P-2. The petitioner considering himself eligible both in terms of experience and qualifications as per the terms of the advertisement, applied for the said post. The petitioner did qualify the written test and was interviewed as well. He was selected by the Corporation but not offered appointment by the PSEB on the grounds that he did not possess the requisite experience and was over age on the relevant dates. The petitioner made two representations, dated November 24, 1983 and March 6, 1984, Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively. His request was, however, turned down vide Annexure P-5.