CHATTAR SINGH Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come up with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to command the official respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to consider his case for promotion to the post of Lineman as according to the petitioner he is matriculate with an ITI certificate and the persons junior to him have been promoted since the year 1979-80.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner joined the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board as Key Mate on 1.10.1970 on the basis of qualifications of Matriculate with an ITI Certificate in Turner trade. He was promoted as Assistant Lineman on 8.2.1972 on ad hoc basis and was made regular on 5.8.1972. The petitioner was thereafter promoted on 10.8.1980 as Lineman vide order No. 345 issued by the office of the Superintending Engineer, Rohtak Circle. However, before he could join the promotional post of Lineman, he was reverted to the post of Assistant Lineman vide subsequent order dated 5.12.1980 on the premise that he did not possess the requisite qualification of Matriculation with ITI in the trade of Electrician/Wireman/Lineman. The petitioner thereafter represented to the authorities pointing out that firstly, in terms of the policy decision of the Board, it was not expressly required that the ITI qualification has to be in a particular trade and secondly, the persons having ITI certificate in the trade other than Electrician/Wireman have already been promoted as Lineman, therefore, he ought not to have been discriminated against. The representation sent by the petitioner did not find favour with the authorities thereby prompting him to approach this Court. In the writ petition also the claim of the petitioner is founded upon the facts that there was no requirement of ITI certificate in a specified trade for promotion to the post of Lineman and that action of the respondents in reverting him and/or not promoting on the basis of his qualification of Matriculation with an ITI certificate was discriminatory in nature as the persons, whose particulars are mentioned in paragraph 3(a) of the writ petition, having qualifications of ITI certificate in the trades other than Electrician/Wireman were promoted as Linemen. These persons have been impleaded by the petitioner as respondent Nos. 5 to 7.

(3.) In response to the notice of motion, written statement has been filed on behalf of the Board, inter alia, stating that respondent Nos. 5 to 7 were still working as Assistant Lineman and were not promoted as Lineman and that the petitioner was erroneously promoted by over-looking the fact that ITI certificate passed by him was not in the trade of Electrician/Wireman and since the order of reversion was passed even before he could join the promotional post, there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. It has been denied that any person possessing the qualification of Matriculation with an ITI certificate in a trade other than Electrician/Wireman, has been promoted as Lineman. A positive stand has been taken that no Assistant Lineman can be considered for promotion from the quota of Matriculate with ITI unless he possesses the ITI certificate in Electrician/Wireman trade.