Dismissed

Arjinder Singh etc. v. Pb. St. Electy. Board etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Feb 2011CWP/21826/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employees challenging the criteria for promotion to Junior Engineer posts based on a 2008 Circular were dismissed. The Court upheld the Board's policy favoring diploma holders with earlier qualification dates over those who completed courses later, deeming it a rationed preference for qualitatively experienced staff rather than inefficiency.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners' plea for interference with the impugned Circular dated 14.7.2008 was dismissed.

Arjinder Singh etc. Vs Pb. St… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.21826 of 2008 Date of Decision : February 09, 2011.

¶3

Arjinder Singh and others ..... Petitioners versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others ..... Respondents

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶5

Present : Mr.G.S.Bal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.P.S.Thiara, Advocate, for the respondents. -.-

¶6

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶7

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶8

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶9

(Oral) Surya Kant, J.

¶10

The petitioners are working as Linemen in the respondentBoard (now Power Com.). They are aggrieved by the Circular dated 14.7.2008 (Annexure P-3) whereby the criteria for promotion to the posts of Junior Engineers from amongst the 'diploma holder Linemen' is said to have been misconstrued and mis-interpreted contrary to the basic Circular dated 3.5.2005 (Annexure P-1).

¶11

2] The respondents have filed their reply-affidavit maintaining that the impugned Circular dated 14.7.2008 is in consistent with the object sought to be achieved by the original promotion policy/Circular dated 3.5.2005 (Annexure P-1).

¶12

3] In order to appreciate the controversy, suffice it to mention that vide Recruitment Policy/Circular dated 3.5.2005 (Annexure P-1), the

¶13

C.W.P.No .21826 of 2008 2

¶14

respondents have prescribed the following criteria for recruitment to the posts of Junior Engineers (Electrical):-

¶15

i)	By direct recruitment from the open market	30%
ii)	By promotion from Board employees having diploma in Elect. Engg. and working	25%	i) by conducting departmental recruitment test,
	as SSA, LM, MR,		manually for
	ALM/RTM Test Mechanic,		preparing panel.
	Telephone Mechanic,
	Telephone Attendants and Technical categories with an experience of 3 years on their respective posts and Matric with ITI & experience of 8 years as L.M.		ii) it shall continue temporary till the under employed Diploma Holders are adjusted & thereafter diverted to direct recruitment.
iii)	By promotion from Diploma Holder L.M.	5%
iv)	By promotion from LM on seniority cum merit basis as per existing provisions of Technical Services Class-III Regulation, 1996 as amended till date.	40%

¶16

4] The afore-stated Recruitment Policy has been subsequently modified vide Circular dated 21.8.2006 (Annexure P-2) whereby 25% quota to be filled up by conducting a Departmental Promotional Test has been increased to 30%.

¶17

5] It may be seen that 30% posts of Junior Engineers are to be filled up by promotion from amongst various categories of employees like Sub Station Attendants/Linemen/Meter Readers/Assistant Linemen/RTM etc. who are having technical qualification, i.e., Diploma in Electrical

¶18

C.W.P.No .21826 of 2008 3

¶19

Engineering with three years working experience and eight years working experience with matriculation/I.T.I. The above stated 30% posts are filled up by conducting a departmental recruitment test. Similarly, 40% posts of Junior Engineers (Electrical) are to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Linemen alone on seniority-cum-merit basis who have completed 16 years of service. In addition, 5% posts of Junior Engineers (Electrical) are to be filled up by promotion “from amongst the diploma holder Linemen”.

¶20

6] As regard to these 5% posts, the Promotion Policy dated 3.5.2005 clarifies as follows:

¶21

“......5% qualification based promotion quota shall be subject to fulfilling of the following conditions/criteria:1) Only those Diploma Holders subordinate categories in the concerned stream shall be eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of JE in the same stream who have completed 16 years of service. 2) To fill up proposed quota of 5% (under Sr.No.1) above, the vacancies of JE(E) falling under Deptt. and recruitment test, i.e., 30% shall only be taken for promotion of Diploma Holder Linemen and that also in 50:50 ration, i.e., 50% vacancies shall be filled up by promotion from D.Hs and 5% proposed new quota subject to ceiling of 5% of cadres posts of JEs (E) and 50% vacancies by holding Departmental Recruitment Test; for example, out of 100 vacancies of cadre posts, 30 seniority cum-merit and out of remaining 30 meant for department recruitment test, 15 will be filled up by promotion from Diploma Holder JM subject to ceiling

¶22

C.W.P.No .21826 of 2008 4

¶23

of 5% of total cadre posts of JE (Elect.) and 15 by holding departmental recruitment test from amongst eligible categories already notified....”

¶24

7] Thereafter, the impugned Circular dated 14.7.2008 (Annexure P-3) has been issued by the Board, the contents whereof read as follows:-

¶25

“.....In case two or more members of Diploma Holder Linemen become eligible for promotion to the rank of JE on fulfilling the requisite condition against 5% Diploma Holder quota reservation provided in O/o No.1200/ENG-20(9) Vol.2, dated 3.5.2005 modified vide O/o No.534/ENG-20(9) Vol.2 dated 21.8.2006, their seniority for and on appointment as JE shall be determined keeping in view of their acquiring prescribed qualification of 3 years Diploma Course in earlier batch subject to the condition of completion of minimum 16 years service at the time of actual promotion...”

¶26

(emphasis applied)

¶27

8] The controversy in the present case pertains to 5% promotional quota meant for the diploma holder Linemen only. It needs no emphasis that only those diploma holder Linemen need be promoted against 5% quota who are unable to qualify the Departmental Test held for filling up 30% posts of Junior Engineers (Electrical). The petitioners contend that the impugned Circular runs contrary to the basic Circular dated 3.5.2005 (Annexure P-1) as it erroneously provides that a Lineman who has acquired three years diploma course “in earlier batch” subject to the condition of completion of minimum 16 years service “at the time of

¶28

C.W.P.No .21826 of 2008 5

¶29

actual promotion”, shall rank above the Lineman who has acquired three years diploma course subsequently irrespective of their otherwise inter se seniority. In other words, the petitioners urge that irrespective of the date of acquisition of three years diploma course, the promotion against 5% quota should be made on the basis of seniority-cum-qualification as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or `yearwise' on completion of 16 years of service. According to the petitioners, the inter se seniority for the purpose of promotion against 5% quota cannot be fluctuating and uncertain depending upon their dates of acquisition of three years diploma course.

¶30

9] I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records.

¶31

10] In my considered view, no interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is called for in the impugned Policy/Circular dated 14.7.2008. I say so for the reason that a diploma holder Lineman with three years experience is eligible to compete for promotion against 30% quota of Junior Engineers (Electrical) through the departmental promotion test. As against it, a diploma holder Lineman would be eligible for promotion against 5% quota only after he completes 16 years of service which means that such diploma holder Lineman is unable to qualify the departmental promotion test for 13 long years. It is only when he cannot pass the departmental promotion test and fails to avail the promotion against 30% quota that he looks towards the 5% quota against which only those diploma holder Linemen are to be promoted who

¶32

C.W.P.No .21826 of 2008 6

¶33

have got 16 years experience.

¶34

11] The 5% promotion quota for Diploma Holder Lineman is, thus, nothing but a consolation or premium on inefficiency.

¶35

12] The question that arises is as to whether the respondentauthorities are still entitled to prescribe some uniform criteria/bench mark to pick up the better or best from amongst the inefficient lot of diploma holders Linemen?

¶36

13] It is in this backdrop that the policy Circular which gives preference to the diploma holder Linemen on the basis of the year of acquisition of such diploma course (instead of the year of joining the service) for the purpose of promotion against 5% quota, deserves to be appreciated. The policy circular has a rational behind it to give preference to a qualitatively better experienced Lineman as against the Lineman who joined the Board without passing three years diploma course and has completed the said course subsequently while in service. Even if the petitioners' contention to consider the qualification as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy and/or to prepare year-wise list has some logic behind it, yet it does not fall within the domain of a writ Court to substitute the impugned policy decision which carries better rationale behind it.

¶37

14] No case to interfere with the impugned Policy/Circular dated 14.7.2008 (Annexure P-3) is made out.

¶38

15] Dismissed.

¶39

February 09, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE

Arjinder Singh etc. v. Pb. St. Electy. Board etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjinder Singh etc. v. Pb. St. Electy. Board etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amrik Singh Vs Pb. and Hry. High Court and Ors.

Priya and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Shaheed Udham Singh Society Vs State of Punjab etc.

Gurdip Lal Chopra Vs A.G. Punjab and Ors.

Manjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jagjit Singh @ Honey Vs State of Punjab and Ors.