S.S Nijjar, J.:— In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 21.12.1985, 27.09.1986 and 13.04.1987 by which respondent Nos. 2 to 6 have been promoted as Assistant Engineers without considering the claim of the petitioners who claim to be senior to the respondents. The petitioners also pray for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to consider the petitioners for promotion as Assistant Engineers with effect from the dates persons junior to them have been promoted. They also seek a writ declaring Regulation 10(3) (c) of the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Electrical) Regulations, 1965, reserving posts for Diploma Holder Junior Engineers for promotion as Assistant Engineers as illegal, discriminatory, arbitrary, void and unconstitutional.
2. The petitioners and private respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are working as Junior Engineer in the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). The seniority of the Junior Engineers is determined from the dates of their respective, appointments. Petitioner No. 1 has been promoted as Junior Engineer with effect from 03.12.1976 and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were promoted as Junior Engineers with effect from 13.12.1976 Respondent Nos. 2 was promoted as Junior Engineer-I in 1979. A seniority list was circulated as on 31.12.1985, wherein the petitioners have been listed as on 31.12.1985, wherein the petitioners have been listed at serial No. 5, 6, and 7, while respondent Nos. 2 to 6 have been listed at serial Nos. 10, 13, 17, 18 and 19. So it becomes apparent that the petitioners are senior to the respondents. All the Junior Engineers i.e Diploma Holder, Non-Diploma Holder and Degree Holder are members of the common cadre and are on the same seniority list. The conditions of service of the petitioners and the private respondents are governed on the basis of 1965 Regulations. These Regulations provided for onward promotion of technical subordinate to the post of Assistant Engineer. Regulation 10 of the 1965 Regulations provides for promotions of Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineers. Clause (3) of Regulation 10 of 1965 Regulations, which is relevant for the decision of the present writ petition, is reproduced as under:—
“(3) (a). In the Maintenance organization and Carrier Communication Divisions, 25% of the cadre posts of Asstt. Engineers shall be reserved for Junior Engineers promoted from the posts of Test Inspectors, Telephone Supervisors and Telephone Construction Foremen on merit-cum-seniority basis, as per clauses (b) & (c) below.
(b) Junior Engineers having their record above average who may be promoted as per provisions contained in (a) above possessing minimum academic qualification of Matriculation with not less than 10 years service as Junior Engineers, Test Inspector, Telephone Supervisor and Telephone Construction Foremen, as the case may be, out of which a minimum service of five years shall be as Junior Engineers will be eligible for appointment to the service as Assistant Engineer subject to the condition that their number does not exceed 55% of the total number of cadre posts of Assistant Engineers reserved in (a) above.
(c) In addition to the 55% posts as per (b) above, 45% of the total number of cadre posts of Assistant Engineers reserved in (a) above shall further be reserved for Engineering Subordinates holding ¾ years Diploma in Electrical Engineers of recognized institutes with seven years minimum service as Junior Engineer Test Inspector, Telephone Supervisor and Telephone Construction Foreman, as the case may be, out of which a minimum service of five years shall be as Junior Engineer.
Provided that in case vacancies exist for a particular category (Diploma or non-Diploma) and eligible persons belonging to that category are not available, they may be filled up by eligible person(s) of other category.”
(The above decision takes effect from 8.3.1983)”.
3. A perusal of the aforesaid Regulation makes it clear that certain posts have been reserved for promotion on the basis of education/technical qualifications for promotion to the next higher post.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid regulations are liable to be declared ultra vires of the Constitution of India. In support of the proposition, learned counsel relies on a judgment of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vermani v. P.S.E.B,1 in which reservation for Diploma Holder Assistant Engineers for promotion to the post of Executive Engineers, was declared ultra vires of the Constitution. He further relies on the judgment of this Court in Sukhdev Raj Sharma v. P.S.E.B,2”. In this case, a Division Bench of this Court quashed the orders of the Board fixing quota between Diploma Holders and Non-Diploma Holder Line Superintendent for promotion as Junior Engineers. Thereafter, the Supreme Court in the case of P.S.E.B v. Ravmder Kumar Sharma,3 has held that the fixation of quota between Diploma Holders and Non-Diploma Holder Line Superintendents for purpose of promotion is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, it is submitted that Regulation 10(3)(c) is ultra vires of the Constitution of India.
5. The judgment in Vinod Kumar Vermani's case (supra) and Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case (supra), were cited before the Division Bench when notice of motion was issued on 20.05.1987
6. Mr. Sandhu, learned counsel appearing for the Board submits that the controversy raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra. It is submitted that the matter is now squarely covered by a decision of the Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of P.S.E.B, Patiala v. Ashok Kumar Sehgal,4.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case and the judgment of the Full Bench mentioned above.
8. I am of the opinion that the present matter is squarely covered against the petitioners by the law laid down by this Court. Mr. Sandhu also brought to the notice of this Court that the appeals filed against the judgment of the Full Bench, have also been dismissed by the Supreme Court by its judgment dated 14.09.1994 He submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in Reminder Kumar Sharma's case (supra) relied upon by the petitioners, has been subsequently considered by the Supreme Court in the case of P. Murugesan v. State of Tamil Nadu,5. In paragraph 19, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:—
“19. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision in Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, (1986) 4 S.C.C 617 : 1987 S.C.C (L&S) 13 : (1987) 1 S.C.R 72, a decision rendered by a Bench comprising A.P Sen and B.C Ray, JJ. The category of linemen in the service of the Punjab State Electricity Board comprised both diploma holders and others who may be referred to as non-diploma holders. They constituted one single category having a common seniority list. By means of the rules issued under the proviso to Article 309, a quota was prescribed for diploma holders, the result of which was that diploma holders who were far junior to the non-diploma holders were promoted ignoring the non-diploma holders The rule was held to be bad by the learned Subordinate Judge, Patiala. On appeal, the Additional District Judge, Patiala, affirmed the judgment. It was affirmed by the High Court as well. The matter was brought to this Court. This Court affirmed the judgment of the High Court. A perusal of the judgment shows that the attention of the Bench was not drawn either to T.N Khosa or to other decisions. Reference was made only to the observations in Sh'ujat Ali quoted herein before and it was held that the distinction made, between the diploma holders and non-diploma holders was discriminatory and bad. Apart from the distinction on facts between that case and the case before us, it is evident that non-consideration of T.N Khosa and other decisions relevant under the subject has led to the laying down of a proposition which seems to run counter to T.N Khosa. With great respect to the learned Judges who decided that case, we are unable to accept the broad proposition flowing from the case.”
9. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the matter is no longer res integra. The present writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
R.M.S
Petition allowed.
Comments