AMRIK SINGH Vs. SADHU SINGH BATHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present judgment I propose to dispose of R.S.A. No.3871 and 3239 of 1987 CWP No.1620 of 1983. The facts have been taken from RSA No.3871 of 1987.

(2.) Amrik Singh appellant was appointed as a Divisional Head Draftsman in the Punjab State Electricity Board on 12th August, 1974, whereas the respondent Sadhu Singh Bathal was appointed as a Junior Engineer on 22nd September, 1970. It is the admitted case that both the posts are inter-changeable. The appellant qualified the A.M.I.E. examination on 5.8.1987 whereas the respondent obtained this qualification on 10.2.1979. It is the admitted case that the services of the appellant as well as the respondent No.1 were governed by the Punjab State Electricity Board Services of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). The regulations as applicable to the parties provided that the promotion to the post of SDO (Civil) or Assistant Engineer Class-II from the post of Junior Engineer and Divisional Head Draftsman, the necessary requirement was a minimum of five years of service along with A.M.I.E. qualification. As per proviso sixthly (a) of Regulations 16(1) of 1965 Regulations, it was provided that in case two or more members from different categories became eligible to the rank of Assistant Engineer Class-II, the seniority was to be determined in order of their acquiring the prescribed qualification of AMIE degree in Engineering and the subordinates who cleared the final examination in an earlier batch and had completed a minimum of five years service would be placed above those fulfilling these two conditions subsequently. The appellant, Amrik Singh, no doubt was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer by the Board as he had cleared the AMIE examination on 5th August, 1978 whereas the respondent who had qualified the examination of AMIE on 10th February, 1979 was, as per this regulation required to be treated as junior to the appellant. In the meantime, however, the Board in its meeting held on 9th December, 1981 (Ex. P1) took a decision to the following effect:

(3.) Mr. S.S. Nijjar, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellant has sought to contend that as the proposed amendment dated 9th December 1981 had not been notified in terms of Section 79 of the Act, it would not have any force and as it had been formally notified on 16.6.1983 vide Ex.DW/3/4 it could not be said to operate prior to that date and as such no benefit could accrue to the respondent.