Holding

The withdrawal of the 1980 promotion policy precludes any out‑of‑turn promotion based on degree qualifications; the appellant may only seek direct recruitment if vacancies are notified.

Summary

Siri Pal, a lineman with the Haryana State Electricity Board, obtained an AMIE qualification (equivalent to a B.E.) in March 1992 and sought an out‑of‑turn promotion to Junior Engineer based on a Board promotion policy dated 22 April 1980, which granted such promotions to degree‑qualified employees. The Board withdrew that policy in March 1981 and instead gave two advance increments, leading to the dismissal of Pal's writ petition. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the withdrawal of the 1980 policy barred Pal from claiming the promotion and whether the Board must consider him for direct recruitment under the 60% vacancy provision. The Court held that the withdrawal precludes any out‑of‑turn promotion on the basis of degree qualifications; promotions already given were being recalled. Pal may only apply for direct recruitment if vacancies are notified, and no direction was issued to grant him out‑of‑turn promotion. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the withdrawal of the 1980 promotion policy in March 1981 bars the appellant from claiming an out‑of‑turn promotion under that policy.
Whether the Board is obligated to consider the appellant for direct recruitment under the 60% vacancy provision of the promotion policy.
Whether the promotions granted to other employees between 1989 and 1991 were lawful.

Legislation cited

Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948s. 79(c)

Subjects

out‑of‑turn promotionElectricity (Supply) Actrecruitment policypolicy withdrawaldirect recruitmentseniority‑cum‑meritservice lawpromotion eligibility

Judgment

A SIRI PAL
v.
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD X:

JANUARY 9, 1995

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND S.C. SEN, JJ.J

· Service Law-Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948-Sec. 79(c}-Revised
...
Recrnitment & Promotion Policy-Engineering graduates-Out of tum promo-
r-
tion Policy decision ofApril 1980 withdrawn March 1981-0ut of tum promo-
C . tions between 1989 and 1991--No one entitled to promotion.

.The appellant while working as lineman with the Haryana Electicity .
Board acquired in March 1992 the qualification of A.M.I.E. which is
equivalent to a B.E. degree. The Board under Sec. 79(C) of the Electricity
(Supply) Act, 1948 tiad passed a Promotion Policy Resolution dated April ·
D 22, 1980 which envisaged grant of out of tum promotion to candidates who
-">!:. ~---
had acquired Degree qualification in Engineering. In M.arch 1981 the said
promotion policy was withdrawn and the Board decided to grant two
advance increments to p~rsons holding such qualifications. On the basis
of the 1980 policy the appellant claitned promotion to the post of Junior
,..~
E Engin~r but was granted only two advance increments.

The appellant's Writ Petition in the High Court was dismissed on
the ground that on March 12, 1981, the benefit of granting out of tum
promotion to the candidates who had acquired degree qualification was
withdrawn. Instead the Board had decided to grant two advance incre-
F ments. Accordingly, the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of promo- 1:r
ti on.

Before this Court, the appellant contended that ten persons who had
secured graduation in the years 1989 to 1991, were. promoted as Junior
G Engineers. The respondent in its counter affidavit admitted that the
promotions were given wrongly to some persons. The ten persons. so
promoted sought to come on record as interveners.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

H HELD : 1. Since the policy decision taken in April 1980 was withdrawn
122
SIRI PAL v. H.S.E.B. 123

in March 1981 no one will be entitled to claim nor be given any promotion A
out of turn on the basis of a~quiring graduation, be it A.M.I.E. or B.E.
However, some persons were admittedly promoted but the same was being
recalled and withdrawn by the Board. In view of the facts and circumstances
of the case ~o directions need to be given to the Board to consider the case
of the appellant for out of turn promotion. [124-H, 125-A-B]
B
2. If the appellant was eligible under the policy and 60% posts were
available, the vacancies should be notified by the Board for direct recruit-
ment and the appellant could also apply for being considered at par with
others for appointment as direct recruit in accordance with rules. [125-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 722 of
c
1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 6.1.94 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in C.W.P. No. 15442 of 1993.
D
Pannalal Syngal, Franklin David and D.B. Vohra for the Appellant.

M.R. Sharma, K.K Jain, Ms. Anjana Sheena and Pramod Dayal for
the Respondents.

Anant Palli, Dinesh Kumar, Atul Sharma, Ms. Rekha Palli, S.C. E. _
Patel, K.K. Mohan and Pradeep Gupta for the Interveners.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.
F
This. appeal arises from the judgment and order of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court dated January 6, 1994, made in CWP No. 15442/93.
The appellant while working as a Lineman, admittedly, had acquired the
qualification of AM.LE. which is equivalent to B.E. Degree in March,
1992. On this basis, he filed a writ petition for out of turn promotion as
Junior Engineer as envisaged by the Board in its policy dated April 22, G
1980. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that on March 12,
1981, the benefit of granting out of turn promotion to the candidates who
have acquired Degree qualification was withdrawn. Instead the Board had
decided to grant two advance increments on that basis he was granted two
advance increments. Accordingly, he is not entitled to the benefit. H
)

124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.

A · In special leave petition,alkgation was made that certain persons
who have secured gradaution in the years 1989 to 1991, were promoted as
Junior Engineers. Notice was issued to the respondents to show cause why
the same benefit should not be given to the appellant as well. In the counter
affidavit filed in this court, it was admitted t~at the promotions were
wrongly given. Pursuant thereto a direction was issued by this Court to find
B out as to what action was taken by the Board in that behalf. Thereafter
proceedings appear to have been taken to recall the promotions given to
ten persons. We are not concerned, at this stage, with regard thereto, with
them though they sought to come on record as interveners.

C The crucial question, however, is whether the appellant is entitled to
out of turn promotion. The Board has passed a Promotion Policy Resolu-
tion exercising powers under s.79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948,
called 'Revised
. . .
Recruitment and Promotion Policy'. Paragraph 1.3 of this
Policy relates to the 'Lineman' to which post the appellant belongs. Para-
D graph 1.3.1 provides that the recruitment will be made from amongst
Assistant Linemen working in respective circles on seniortiy-cum-merit
basis. The post of Assistant Foreman, as per paragraph 1.4.1. is to be filled
up by promotion from amongst Linemen on seniority-cum-merit basis.
(Thereafter, the Junior Engineers are to be recruited under paragraph 1.5.
E Paragraph 1.5.1. provides that 60% posts of Junior Engineers (Field) will
be filled up by direct recruitment out of the persons having three years'
Diploma in Electrical/Mechanical/Electronics. Employees already µi the
service of the Board and possess the requisite qualifications but working
on lower post on regular basis, will also be eligible' for direct recruitment.
In other words, 60% of the posts are available for direct recruitment
F including the persons who are having the requisite qualifications and
.working in .the lower regular posts. Paragraph 1.5.3. prescribes promotion
\\ • • j
from Assistant Foremen. It postulates that 40% P?sts will be filled up by
promotion from amongst the Assistant Foremen on seniority-cum-merit
basis and belonging to the category under para 1.4.2. above. Thus it could
G be seen tliat for normal channel of promotion a Lineman is entitled to be
considered for the post of Assistant Foreman and an Assistant Foreman is
entitled to be considered for promotion as Junior Engineer. Since the ~
policy decision, which was taken in April, 1980, was withdrawn in March
1981, no one will be entitled to claim nor be given any promotion out of
H turn on the basis that he had acquired graduation, be it AM.LE. or B.E.
l
'!--
SIRI PAL v. H.S.E.B. 125

It is seen that some persons, admittedly, have been promoted but the A
promotions are being recalled and being withdrawn by the Board. If it was
;L a case where the candidates are allowed to take the benefit, the appellant,
certainly, would be right in his contention that he stands on the same
footing for consideration. Since the Board has already taken action to
withdraw the benefit wrongly given, which would be passed shortly, we
~ cannot give any directions to the Board to consider the case of the
B
appellant for out of turn promotion. Needless to state that if the appellant
is eligible under the Policy and 60% posts are available, the Board should
......
notify the vacancies for direct recruitment and the appellant can also apply
for being considered at par with others for appointment as direct recruit
in accordance with the Rules. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No c

-
costs.
(
IA. No. 8/95 - Dismissed as withdrawn.

All other applications for intervention are dismissed.
D
A.G. Appeal dismissed.
/"

,,