Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Sukhdev Raj Sharma and Ors.
EmailAppeal: C.M.P. No. 27361-62/86 in C.A.Nos. 2007-2008 of 1980.
Petitioner: Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr.
Respondent: Sukhdev Raj Sharma and Ors.
Apeal: C.M.P. No. 27361-62/86 in C.A.Nos. 2007-2008 of 1980.
Judges: A.P.SEN, E.S.VENKATARAMIAH & B.C.RAY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 30, 1987
Head Note:
CIVIL SERVICE:
Fixation of quota as between diploma holders and non- diploma holders Line Superintendents for purposes of promotion – Ad interim order leaving promotions already made undisturbed came to an end with the dismissal of the appeals as being infructuous – Court had not expressed any opinion on the validity or otherwise of the quota rule – In a subsequent decision in Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ravinder Kumar Sharma*, the Court held the fixation of quota as wholly arbitrary and irrational and violative of Article 14.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. These applications for directions by the State Electricity Board appear to be wholly misconceived. The ad interim order dated September 15, 1980 which left undisturbed the promotions already made, was an interim order and it came to an end with the dismissal of the appeals being C.A.Nos. 2006-10/86 by the Court’s order dated February 18, 1986 as being infructuous. The Court expressed no opinion as to the validity or otherwise of the quote rule since all the petitioners in the writ petition before the High Court had in the meanwhile been promoted as Junior Engineers and all legal contentions kept open. This question came up for consideration in the subsequent decision of this Court in Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala v. Ravinder Kumar Sharma* 1986(4) SCC 617, which lays down that the fixation of a quota as between diploma holders and non – diploma holders Line Superintendents for purposes of promotion, who were integrated into a common cadre by the State Electricity Board, was wholly arbitrary and irrational and therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Such being the legal position, we find no justification for the State Electricity Board expressing its doubt and difficulty as to the law applicable.
2. The applications for directions are accordingly dismissed.
———————————————
* Also see JT 1986 S.C.743 – Ed.
1. These applications for directions by the State Electricity Board appear to be wholly misconceived. The ad interim order dated September 15, 1980 which left undisturbed the promotions already made, was an interim order and it came to an end with the dismissal of the appeals being C.A.Nos. 2006-10/86 by the Court’s order dated February 18, 1986 as being infructuous. The Court expressed no opinion as to the validity or otherwise of the quote rule since all the petitioners in the writ petition before the High Court had in the meanwhile been promoted as Junior Engineers and all legal contentions kept open. This question came up for consideration in the subsequent decision of this Court in Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala v. Ravinder Kumar Sharma* 1986(4) SCC 617, which lays down that the fixation of a quota as between diploma holders and non – diploma holders Line Superintendents for purposes of promotion, who were integrated into a common cadre by the State Electricity Board, was wholly arbitrary and irrational and therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Such being the legal position, we find no justification for the State Electricity Board expressing its doubt and difficulty as to the law applicable.
2. The applications for directions are accordingly dismissed.
———————————————
* Also see JT 1986 S.C.743 – Ed.
