OM PARKASH KAKYALIA Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tempted by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and another vs. Ravinder Kumar Sharma and others, 1987 AIR(SC) 367 the petitioners have filed and the present petition for quashing the decision of the respondent-Board, Annexure P/2, fixing quashing the decision of the respondent- Board, Annexure P/2, fixing quota of 67 percent and 33 percent respectively from amongst the posts of Inspectors on the basis of Diploma Holders and non Diploma Holders and non Diploma Holders for promotion to the post of Junior Engineers. It is prayed that promotion of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 be quashed and the petitioners be directed to be promoted to the post of Junior Engineers from amongst the post of Inspectors on the basis of their seniority and merit. In Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case the facts were that Ravinder Kumar filed a suit for declaration that he be deemed to have been promoted from the date when his juniors mentioned in the suit were promoted to the post of Line Superintendent. He had stated that he had joined the service in the Punjab State Electricity Board as Line Man on 25.12.1969 to and worked as apprentice Line Man from 29.12.1969 to 28.12.1970 on a fixed salary of Rs. 140/- per month whereafter he was allowed regular scale of Rs. 110-330 since the date of his joining as Line Man. The terms and conditions of the service of the Lineman as well as of the Line Superintendent were governed by the rules framed by the Punjab Government in exercise of its powers under Article 309 of the Constitution which were termed as P.W.D. (Electricity Branch) Provisional Class III (Subordinate Posts) Rules, 1952. Subsequently, the State Electricity Board came into being and the Electricity Department came under the administration of the State Electricity Board. As Line Man he had been performing his duties efficiently and honestly and he had passed B.A., I.T.I, and National Apprentice Certificate in the trade of Line Man. All the Line Men under the Board were either diploma holders or I.T.I. trained or non diploma holders and they formed and constituted one common cadre known as Line Man. The seniority list was common and the Board had been promoting officials from Line Man to Line Superintendent on pick and choose basis in consideration of the qualifications by fixing the quota between the diploma holders and non diploma holders which resulted in arbitrary discrimination between the diploma holders and non diploma holders. He contended that action of the defendants in fixing the quota between the diploma holders and non diploma holder Line Men for the purposes of promotion to the post of Line Superintendent was illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff submitting therein that as he was governed by the rules framed by the Government he could not challenge the action of the respondents prescribing quota for promotion in the ration as detailed therein. After the trial of the suit, the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Patiala held that the plaintiff was entitled to promotion to the post of Line Superintendent and decreed the suit. The appeal filed by the Board was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, and Regular Second Appeal No. 254 of 1988 was also dismissed affirming the judgment of the trial court. The matter was thereafter taken to the Supreme Court wherein it was held:

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein has submitted that in view of the later judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Murugesan and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 1993 2 SCC 340 the judgment delivered in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case is to be deemed to have been set aside being no good law which require the dismissal of the present writ petition. The Supreme Court in P. Murugesan's case had held:

(3.) The Apex Court in P. Murugesan's specifically referred to T.N. Khosa's case and came to the conclusion that "non consideration of T.N. Khosa's case and other decisions relevant on the subject has lead to the to the laying down of proposition which seems to run counter to T.N. Khosa's case. With respect to the learned Judges who decided that case, we are unable to accept the broad proposition flowing from the case." It implies, therefore, that without using harsh words in their judgment, the Apex Court in P. Murugesan's case held that the law laid down in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case was no good law in the presence of the law laid down in T.N. Khosa's case and other cases.