DARSHAN SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these four writ petitions complain that the Punjab State Electricity Board has wrongly ignored their claims for appointment to the posts of Auxiliary Plant Attendants. The respondents contest this claim. Counsel for the petitioners have referred to the factual position in Civil Writ Petition No. 2161 of 1994. It may be briefly noticed.

(2.) The Board issued circulars on October 28, 1991 and on November 20, 1991 inviting applications for appointments to the posts of Auxiliary Plant Attendants at the Thermal Plants in Ropar and Bathinda. However, no selection was made. On July 29, 1992, a fresh circular was issued by which applications were invited for 30 posts of Auxiliary Plant Attendants. Persons working on regular, work-charged and daily wages who fulfilled the prescribed qualifications were eligible to apply. It was inter alia provided that the candidate should have "at least 3 years experience as Plant Attendant on Condensor, Boiler Feed Pump and other Auxiliaries of Thermal Plant of minimum 15 MW capacity or above." The petitioners who are working as Sub Station Attendants applied for these posts.

(3.) On September 24, 1992, a Committee constituted to consider the claim of the Sub Station Attendants for the posts of Auxiliary Plant Attendants, submitted its report. It was of the view that "since the seniority of Sub Station Attendants (including those working at Thermal Plants) is being maintained at Board's level for their promotion as Sub Station Operators and their basic duty on the plants is to operate switch gears, which is similar to the duties of Sub Station Attendants in the Distribution, they should not be considered for the posts of Auxiliary Plant Attendants." The petitioners were not treated as eligible for appointment to the posts of Auxiliary Plant Attendants. The Selection Committee after examination of the matter prepared a list. A notice dated December 14, 1992 was issued. It was inter alia observed that the Selection Committee had checked the documents of the candidates and drawn "a tentative seniority list." The list could be inspected in the office of the Superintending Engineer and in case, any of the eligible candidates "have any objections in respect of the list they can make individual representations..... in writing .... upto 18.12.1992 - 11 a.m." The petitioners claim that they represented. However, the objections were decided only on October 7, 1993 when one of the petitioners was informed that the Sub Station Attendants were entitled to be considered to the posts of Sub Station Operators and as such, he is not eligible for the post of Auxiliary Plant Attendant. This was done only after the petitioners had filed CWP No. 1350 of 1993. The petitioners claim that the report dated September 24, 1992 submitted by the Sub Committee, the list prepared by the Selection Committee and the order rejecting their representation, copies of which have been produced on record as Annexures P.3 to P.5, are illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They pray that these orders be quashed and that the respondents be directed by the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider their claim for the posts of Auxiliary Plant Attendants in the direct recruitment quota. They also pray that the Board should be restrained from appointing respondent Nos. 5 to 39 to the posts in question.