Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by Siri Pal, a Lineman with the Haryana State Electricity Board, who claimed out-of-turn promotion to Junior Engineer after acquiring an A.M.I.E. qualification, equivalent to a B.E. degree, in March 1992. He relied on a Board policy dated 22 April 1980 that provided out-of-turn promotions for employees who obtained such qualifications. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed his writ petition on 6 January 1994, holding that the 1980 policy had been withdrawn on 12 March 1981 and replaced by a scheme granting two advance increments instead of out-of-turn promotion. Aggrieved, Siri Pal filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, alleging that several persons who acquired graduation between 1989 and 1991 had been promoted as Junior Engineers, thereby claiming parity. In response, the Board filed a counter affidavit admitting that those promotions were wrongly given and that it had initiated proceedings to recall the promotions of ten persons. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that he stood on the same footing as those wrongly promoted and should be considered for out-of-turn promotion. The Board contended that the policy under which such promotions were granted had been withdrawn and that the appellant had already received two advance increments, so he had no right to out-of-turn promotion. The Supreme Court examined the Board's Revised Recruitment and Promotion Policy framed under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, noting that normal promotion from Lineman to Junior Engineer occurred through the post of Assistant Foreman on a seniority-cum-merit basis. The policy also provided that 60% of Junior Engineer (Field) posts be filled by direct recruitment, including serving employees with requisite qualifications. The Court held that because the 1980 policy was withdrawn in March 1981, no employee could claim out-of-turn promotion merely for acquiring a graduation degree. The Court further held that since the Board was in the process of recalling the wrongful promotions, the appellant could not claim parity, as that would perpetuate an illegality. However, the Court observed that if the appellant was eligible and 60% direct recruitment posts were available, the Board should notify vacancies and allow him to apply as a direct recruit on par with others. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without costs, dismissed I.A. No. 8/95 as withdrawn, and dismissed all other intervention applications.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Out-of-Turn Promotion on Acquisition of Higher Qualification - Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Section 79(c) - A Lineman who acquired A.M.I.E. equivalent to B.E. sought out-of-turn promotion as Junior Engineer under Board policy dated 22-04-1980. The Supreme Court examined the Board's Revised Recruitment and Promotion Policy and found that the out-of-turn promotion policy was withdrawn on 12-03-1981 and replaced with grant of two advance increments. Held that no employee can claim out-of-turn promotion based solely on acquiring graduation, and the appellant had no enforceable right to such promotion (Paras 4-5). B) Administrative Law - Parity and Wrongful Promotions - Doctrine of Equality - Not mentioned - Appellant alleged that certain persons who acquired graduation in 1989-1991 were promoted as Junior Engineers, and demanded similar benefit. The Board admitted those promotions were wrongly given and initiated proceedings to recall promotions of ten persons. The Court refused to direct similar benefit because it would perpetuate an illegality; since the wrongful promotions were being withdrawn, the appellant could not claim parity. Held that when erroneously granted benefits are being withdrawn, a claim for equal treatment fails (Paras 3-5). C) Service Law - Recruitment - Direct Recruitment Quota for Serving Employees - Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Section 79(c), Revised Recruitment and Promotion Policy para 1.5.1 - The Policy prescribes that 60% posts of Junior Engineers (Field) are to be filled by direct recruitment, and employees already in service with requisite qualifications working on lower posts are also eligible. The Court observed that if the appellant was eligible under the Policy and 60% posts were available, the Board should notify vacancies for direct recruitment and permit the appellant to apply at par with others. Held that the appellant could seek consideration through direct recruitment channel instead of out-of-turn promotion (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, a Lineman who acquired A.M.I.E. equivalent to B.E., was entitled to out-of-turn promotion as Junior Engineer under the Board's policy dated 22-04-1980 despite its withdrawal on 12-03-1981; and whether the appellant could claim parity with others who were wrongly promoted.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that since the out-of-turn promotion policy of April 1980 was withdrawn in March 1981, the appellant had no right to out-of-turn promotion based on acquiring graduation. The Court found that the Board was already recalling wrongful promotions and therefore no direction for parity could be issued. However, if the appellant was eligible under the Revised Recruitment and Promotion Policy and 60% direct recruitment posts were available, the Board should notify vacancies and allow him to apply as a direct recruit on par with others. No costs were awarded. I.A. No. 8/95 was dismissed as withdrawn and all other intervention applications were dismissed.
Law Points
- No out-of-turn promotion after withdrawal of policy
- parity cannot be claimed when wrongful promotions are being recalled
- serving employees with requisite qualifications eligible for direct recruitment under 60% quota
- Board must notify vacancies for direct recruitment
