JATINDER SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners joined, the service of the Punjab State Electricity Board, Respondent No. 1, as Line Superintendents on different dates in the years 1967 to 1974. At the time of their initial appointment, they held diploma in Electrical Engineering. While working as Line Superintendents, they passed Section (A) and (B) of the Institution of Engineers (India) commonly known as A.M.I.E. They are eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Class II). Their seniority inter se as Line Superintendents is governed by Rule 9 of the Punjab Public Works Department (Electricity Branch) State Service Class III (Subordinate Posts) Rules, 1952 and has been determined in the order of the dates of their appointment. The Respondents Nos. 2 to 9 have also been working as Line Superintendents. Out of them, Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 had degree in Electrical Engineering when they joined the post of Line Superintendent, the requisite qualification of which was diploma in Electrical Engineering. Respondents Nos. 7 to 9 proceeded on leave while in service as Line Superintendents and passed 3 years integrated course conducted by the Jodhpur University in Electrical Engineering in the year 1977. Respondents Nos. 2 to 9 were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer Class II,--vide order August 23, 1978 (Annexure P.1.). The Petitioners assert that Respondents Nos. 2 to 9 were junior to them in the post of Line Superintendent and could not be promoted as Assistant Engineer Class II through the impugned order over their head, without considering them for the said post. Thus being aggrieved by the impugned order, they filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the Order Annexure P-1 and also declare the provisions of Rule 9(7) of the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Electrical) Regulations, 1965 (for short, the Regulations) as ultra vires and discriminatory.

(2.) Written statements were filed on behalf, of Respondent No. 1 and Respondent Nos. 2 to 9. It was contended that the impugned order was valid in law. Rule 9(7) of the Regulations is intra vires and is not discriminatory. It may be mentioned here that soon after the present writ petition was filed, Respondent No. 1 issued letters to Respondents Nos. 7 to 9 requiring them to show cause why they should not be reverted to the post of Line Superintendent. They filed in this Court Civil Writ Petition No. 5073 of 1978. This writ petition was disposed of by me on February 5, 1986. Counsel for Respondent No. 1 stated at the Bar that the decision on show-cause notices issued to Respondents Nos. 7 to 9 shall be taken after hearing them as also the other officers who might be affected by the decision which would ultimately be taken by Respondent No. 1. No doubt, in the present writ petition, the Petitioners have challenged the promotions of Respondents Nos. 7 to 9 under Regulation 9(9) of the Regulations, firstly, by disputing the fact that three years integrated course passed by them is equivalent to a degree in Electrical Engineering and secondly on the ground, that if at all their qualification could be treated as a degree, they acquired the same during the course of their service as Line Superintendents and as such they could not get promotion as Assistant Engineer Class II under Regulation 9(9). They ought to have fallen in queue with the Petitioners for promotion under Regulation 9(7) of the Regulations. In view of my order in C.W.P. No. 5073 of 1978, learned Counsel for the parties have fairly stated at the Bar that the aforesaid questions raised by the Petitioners should await the decision of the Board on the notices issued to Respondents Nos. 7 to 9 and need not to be adjudicated upon and decided through the present writ petition. Thus the question of law that requires determination in the present writ petition is whether Regulation 9(7) vis-a-vis regulation 9(9) by virtue of which Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 were promoted through the impugned order Annexure P.1 is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. With a view to fully appreciate the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, I set out below some of the relevent provisions contained in the Regulations. Regulation 2(c) defines direct appointment, thus:

(3.) XXX XXX XXX