ivil Appeal Nos
3341 4283  SLP No 269384 
From the Judgment  Order dated 25 1 83 of the High Court of Punjab  Haryana in Regular Second Appeal No 25483 Hardev Singh and RS Sodhi for the Appellants
CS Vaidyanathan for the Appellants in CANo 334283
Respondent in person
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BC RAY J
These two appeals by special leave one by the 75 Punjab State Electricity Board Patiala and the other by Gurdial Singh  Ors
who were defendant respondent Nos
346 and 7 in Civil Suit No 293T16 1 18117 7 80 passed in RSA No 25438 whereby the judgments and the decrees of the courts below were affirmed decreeing the plaintiff respondent s suit declaring that the plaintiffrespondent be deemed to have been promoted from the date when his juniors as mentioned in the suit were promoted to the posts of Line Superintendents
The case of the plaintiff in short is that the plaintiff respondent Ravinder Kumar Sharma joined the service under the respondent No 1 Punjab State Electricity Board as a Line Man on 25th December 1969 and he worked as apprentice Line Man from 29121969 to 28121970 on a fixed salary of Rs 140 per month
Thereafter he was allowed regular scale of pay of Rs 110 330 since the date of his joining as a Line Man
The terms and conditions of the service of the LineMen as well as of the Line Superintendent are governed by the rules framed by the Punjab Government in exercise of its powers under article 309 of the Constitution of India which were termed as PWD Electricity Branch Provisional Class III Subordinate posts Rules 1952
Subsequently the State Electricity Board came into being and the Electricity De partment came under the administration of the State Elec tricity Board
The Plaintiff has stated in the plaint that as a Line Man he had been performing his duties efficiently and hon estly and there was never any complaint against his work
His work and conduct had always been appreciated by his superiors from time to time
He possesses the following qualifications 1
BA 2
ITI in the trade of Electrician 2 year s duration
National Apprentice Certificate in the trade of Line Man 3 year s duration
All the Line Men under the defendant No 1 that is Punjab State Electricity Board are either diploma holders or ITI trained or non diploma holders and they form and constitute one common cadre known as Line Man and in the same scale of Rs 110 330
The seniority list of all these Line Men is common and joint
It has been further alleged that defendant No 1 had been promoting officials from Line 76 Men to the Line Superintendent on a pick and choose basis in consideration of the qualifications by fixing a quota be tween the diploma holders and non diploma holders and this has resulted in arbitrary discrimination between the diploma holders and non diploma holders Line Men thereby adversely affecting the promotional prospect of the non diploma hold ers Line Men
It has been further stated that this policy of the defendant No 1 was set aside by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in LP No 618 619 of 1975 fixing the quota between diploma holders and non diploma holders Line Super intendents by orders dated 1211965 and 2761974
Though the minimum qualification for promotion of Line Man to Line Superintendent is however matriculation
The plaintiff also stated that by order dated 127
1977 the respondent No 1 promoted Gurdial Singh whose name appeared at section No 1451 in the common seniority list and also the defendant Jaswant Singh whose name appeared at section No 1546 in the said list as well as Ramesh Kumar standing at section No 2309 in the said seniority list to the post of Line Superintendent even though the plaintiffs position in the seniority list was at section No 995 and he was senior to these officials
Thus the plaintiff was passed over while his juniors were promoted
This policy of pick and choose it has been stated in promoting the officials is wholly illegal and discriminato ry
It has been further pleaded that by office order No 899 dated 1781977 the defendant No 2 that is the Chief Engineer of the Electricity Board further promoted Sudesh Kumar and Virender Kumar whose name stand at section No 1877 and 2279 in the joint seniority list as Line Superintendent from the Line Man
The petitioner therefore pleaded that the action of defendants Nos 1 and 2 in fixing the quota be tween diploma holders and non diploma holders Line Men for the purpose of promotion to the post of Line Superintendent and promoting the defendants 3 to 7 to the posts of Line Superintendent from Line Man is wholly illegal unconstitu tional and arbitrary
The plaintiff therefore prayed for a decree declaring that the orders dated 1271977
and 1781977 promoting the defendants 3 to 7 are illegal discriminatory and null and void as it arbitrarily affects the rights of the plaintiff who is senior to them in not being promoted to the cadre of Line Superintendent
The plaintiff also prayed for a direction that he be promoted to the post of Line Superintendent from the date defendant Nos 3 to 7 were promoted to the said post
The defendant Nos 1 and 2 contested the claim of the plaintiff by filing written statement stating that the terms and conditions of service of Line Men and Line Superintend ent are governed by the rules framed by the Punjab State Government under article 309 of the 77 Constitution and are termed as PWD Electricity Branch Provisional Service Class III Subordinate posts Rule 1952
It has been further stated that the State Electricity Board by office order dated 1451970 prescribed a quota of 5 for diploma holders Line Men for promotion to the post of Line Superintendent This quota of diploma holders Line Men was increased to 20 by the Board by order dated 271973
On 951974 the quota of diploma holders Line Men for promotion to the Line Superintendent was further increased to 33 whereas the quota for promotion of non diploma holders Line Men to the post of Line Superintendent was fixed at 33
It has been stated that according to this quota the defendant Nos 3 to 7 have been promoted and the fixation of quota on the basis of educational qualification cannot be questioned as arbitrary or discriminatory
After heating both the parties the Subordinate Judge 1st Class Patiala held that the plaintiff was entitled to promotion to the post of Line Superintendent and the orders dated 1271977 and 1771977 whereby the defendant Nos 3 to 7 were promoted even though they were junior to the plaintiff are illegal and in violation of the rights of the plaintiff
The suit was decreed and the plaintiff was de clared to have been promoted from the date when his juniors mentioned in the plaint were promoted to the post of Line Superintendent
Against this judgment and decree the Punjab State Elec tricity Board Patiala filed an appeal being CA No 4368 of 1982
The Additional District Judge Patiala after heating the parties dismissed the appeal with costs holding that there was no reasonable nexus by fixing quota for promoting diploma holders Line Men to the post of Line Superintendent even though the non diploma holder as well as the diploma holders formed the joint cadre of Line Men for promotion to the post of Line Superintendent
The judgment of the trial court was affirmed and it was also held that the appeal was not competent inasmuch as there was no reso lution of the board authorising the filing of the appeal
The cross objection filed by the plaintiff respondent was allowed
Against this judgment and decree the defendant Nos
I and 2 preferred an appeal being RSA 254 of 1983
The said appeal was dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the judgment and decrees of the court below were af firmed
It is against this judgment and decree the aforesaid two appeals on special leave petition have been filed in this Court
78 The only issue raised in this appeal is whether the defend ant No 1 that is the Punjab State Electricity Board is competent to discriminate between diploma holders and non diploma holders Line Men forming the common cadre of Line Men having a common seniority list in promoting these Line Men on the basis of quota fixed by the order of the State Electricity Board even though the requisite qualification for promotion for Line Man to the post of Line Superintend ent is either the holding of diploma or certificate for electrical engineering from a recognised institute or the non diploma holders having passed one and half year s course in the trade of ElectricianLine ManWire Man from recog nised Industrial Training Institute and are matriculates and have worked for four years as Line Man continuously and immediately before promotion as has been provided by the office order No 97ENGBETG 33 dated 22101968 the rele vant excerpt of which is quoted herein below Far Direct Recruitment a Possess 3 years certificate or diploma course in Electrical Engineering from any recognised Institute or a certificate of having passed the N CC Test conducted by the State Board of Technical EducationAll India Council for Technical Education
b Have passed action of the Institution of Engineering India Exam
with Elementary Electrical Engineering as the optional paper
For Pormotion c i Have passed 112 years course in the Electrical Trades of ElectricianLine ManWire Man from recognised Industrial Training Institutes and are matric ulates and have worked for 4 years as a Line Man continuously and immediately before promo tion
ii Have passed 112 years course in the Electrical Trades of ElectricianLine ManWire Man from recognised Industrial Training Institutes and are non matriculates but are capable of preparing estimates writing up measurement books accu rately keeping store accounts etc
and have worked for 4 years as a Line Man continuously and immediately before promotion
79 iii Persons holding diploma in Electrical Engineering of 3 to 4 years duration recruited as Line Man against the reservation of 60 fixed for recruitment of persons holding certificate of 112 years course in the Elec trical Trades of ElectricianLine ManWire Man from recognised Industrial Training Insti tutes have worked as Lint Man for 3 years continuously and immediately before promotion
On promotion as Line Superintendent they will be given weightage of 2 years  service as compared to non diploma holders at the time of fixation of their seniority and pay in accordance with the instructions contained in Board s Memo No 8877484BET33L dated 29121967
D i Matriculates Line Man having a total continuous service of 9 years as at ALM and Line Man out of which they should have worked as Line Man for 4 years continuously and immediately before promotion 
ii Non matriculates Line Man having a total continuous service of 11 years as ALM and Line Man out of which they should have worked as Line Man for four years continuously and immediately before promotion provided they are capable of preparing estimates writing up measurement books accurately keeping store accounts and in addition are conversant with Consumer Accounts or possess a special experi ence for transmission line work
The State Electricity Board by its order dated 1451970 introduced the following quota for promotion to the cadre of Line Superintendents 1
Direct recruitment from the open market 62 2
Diploma holders Line Men 5 3
Line Men non diploma holders 33
This quota of promotion for diploma holders Line Man to the pest of Line Superintendent was further increased by office order No 244 dated 271975 by fixing the quota fox promo tion of diploma holders Line Men already in Service of the Board from 5 to 20
Again by office order No 78 dated 961974 the State Electricity Board further increased the quota of promotion of diploma holders Line Man already in the service of the Board from 20 to 33
80 There is no dispute rather it is not controverted that the position of the plaintiff respondent in the joint sen iority list of Line Men in the scale of Rs 110 330 of the Punjab State Electricity Board from 161967 to 3181974 which has been filed as additional document by the Punjab State Electricity Board in CA No 3341 of 1983 that the plaintiff respondent s name was mentioned at section No 995 whereas names of defendant Nos 3 to 7 appear in the said list in section Nos 1451 1546 2309 1877 and 2279 respective ly
Therefore all the defendant Nos 3 to 7 are undoubtedly junior to the plaintiff respondent as LineMen in the joint seniority List of Line Men comprising of both diploma hold ers and non diploma holders Line Men in the same cadre
It iS also clear and evident from the office Order No 97 dated 22101968 that the qualification for promotion to the post of Line Superintendent from Line Men is either holding cer tificate or diploma in electrical engineering from any recognised institute or having passed 1 12 years Course in the electrical trade of ElectricianLine ManWireMan from reCognised Industrial Training Institute and are matricu lates and have worked as Line Man for four years continuous ly and immediately before the promotion
The petitioner who is an Arts Graduate and have ITI Certificate in the trade of electrician 2 years  duration and also have Na tional Apprentice Certificate in the trade of Line Man 3 years  duration is eligible for promotion to the post of Line Superintendent as he has fulfilled all the requisite qualifications
There is no gain saying that all the Line Men either diploma holders or non diploma holders are per forming the same kind of work and duties and they belong to the same cadre having a commonjoint seniority list for promotion to the post of Line Superintendent
The orders dated 1271977 being order No 73 promoting defendant Nos 3 4 and 5 as well as office order No 898 dated 1781977 promoting defendant Nos 6 and 7 on the basis of quota from diploma holders as fixed by the order of the State Electric ity Board dated 951974 is wholly arbitrary illegal discriminatory and violative of the equality clause Con tained in articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it purports to promote defendant Nos 3 to 7 who are admittedly junior to the respondent No 1 in service as Line Man in the State Electricity Board
It has been rightly held by following the decision in Shujat Ali s case  at 480 that the promotion of defendant Nos 3 to 7 who are admittedly junior to the plaintiffrespondent in the service as Line Man to the post of Line Superintendent are illegal arbitrary and discriminatory and so bad
It is pertinent to refer to the observations of this Court in the said case which read as follows 81 But where graduates and non graduates are both regarded as fit and therefore eligible for promotion it is difficult to see how consistently with the claim for equal opportu nity any differentiation can be made between them by laying down a quota of promotion for each and giving preferential treatment to graduates over non graduates in the matter of fixation of such quota
The result of fixation of quota of promotion for each of the two categories of Supervisors would be that when a vacancy arises in the post of Assistant Engi neer which according to the quota is re served for graduate Supervisors a non gradu ate Supervisor cannot be promoted to that vacancy even if he is senior to all other graduate Supervisors and more suitable than they
His opportunity for promotion would be limited only to vacancies available for non graduate Supervisors
That would clearly amount to denial of equal opportunity to him This observation apply with full force to the present case and it has been rightly held by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana that the promotion of defendant Nos 3 to 7 who are junior to the plaintiffrespondent from Line Man to the post of Line Superintendent is wholly bad and discrimi natory and directed that the petitioner be deemed to have been promoted to the post of Line Superintendent from the date the said defendants 3 to 7 had been promoted from Line Man to Line Superintendent In our considered opinion there is no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court affirming the judgment and decree of the courts below
and we agree with the reasonings and conclusions arrived at by the courts below
The two appeals on special leave are therefore dismissed with costs quantified at Rs5000 to be paid by the appellant of CA No 3341 of 1983 to the re spondent No 1
The Punjab State Electricity Board Patiala also filed special leave petition Civil No 2693 of 1984 against the judgment and order dated 1421984 passed in Civil Revision No 407 of 1984 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the Revision Petition
This Revision Petition was filed against the order rejecting the appellant s applica tion for correction of the decree
As we have already dis missed the appeals there is no merit in this special leave petition and the same is accordingly dismissed A P J
Appeals  Petition dismissed


Summary:
Plaintiff respondent Ravinder Kumar Sharma joined serv ice as a Line Man under the respondent Electricity Board
The terms and conditions of the service of the Line Man as well as of the Line Superintendent were governed by the PWD Electricity Branch Provisional Class III Subordi nate posts Rules 1952
The Line Man are either diploma holders or ITI trained or non diploma holders and they form and constitute one common cadre known as Line Man and were in the same scale of pay
The seniority list of all the Line Man is common and joint
By order dated 1271977 the respondent Board promoted Gutdial Singh Jaswant Singh and Ramesh Kumar shown in the common seniority list at section Nos 1451 1546 and 2309 respectively to the pest of Line Super intendent even though the plaintiff respondent s position in the seniority list was at section No 995 and he was senior to the said officials
By order dated 1781977 the Chief Engineer of the respondent Electricity Board further promot ed Sudesh Kumar and Virender Kumar whose name stand at section No 1877 and 2279 in the joint seniority list
The Plain tiff respondent filed a suit alleging that this policy of promotion from Line Man to Line Superintendent on a pick and choose basis by fixing a quota between the diploma holders and non diploma holders is wholly illegal unconstitutional and arbitrary as it adversely affected the promotional prospect of the non diploma holders Line Men and prayed for a decree declaring that the orders dated 1271977 and 73 1781977 promoting the defendants 3 to 7 are illegal discriminatory and null and void as it arbitrarily affects the rights of the plaintiff who is senior to them and that he be promoted to the post of Line Superintendent from the date defendant Nos 3 to 7 were promoted
The defendant Nos 1 and 2 contested the claim of the plaintiff contending that the terms and conditions of serv ice of Line Man and the Line Superintendent are governed by the PWD Electricity Branch Provisional Service Class III Subordinate Posts Rules 1952 framed by the State Government under article 309 of the Constitution that the Electricity Board by various orders prescribed quota for diploma holders Line Men for promotion to the post of Line Superintendent that according to this quota the defendant Nos 3 to 7 have been promoted and that the fixation of the quota on the basis of educational qualification cannot be questioned as arbitrary or discriminatory The Subordinate Judge First Class decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff was entitled to promotion to the post of Line Superintendent and the orders dt1271977 and 1781977 whereby the defendant Nos 3 to 7 were promoted even though they were junior to the plaintiff are illegal and in violation of the rights of the plaintiff and there fore the plaintiff was declared to have been promoted from the date when his said juniors were promoted
The appeal filed by the State Electricity Board was dismissed by the Additional District Judge holding that there was no reasonable nexus by fixing quota for promoting diploma holders Line Men to the post of Line Superintendent even though the non diploma holders as well as the diploma holders formed the joint cadre of Line Man for promotion to the post of Line Superintendent The judgments and decrees of the Courts below were affirmed by the High Court
Dismissing the Appeals and the Special Leave Petition HELD 1
There is no dispute rather it is not contro verted that in the joint seniority list of Line Men the plaintiff respondent s name was mentioned at section No 995 whereas names of defendant Nos 3 to 7 appear in the said list at section Nos 1451 1546 2309 1877 and 2279 respective ly Therefore all the defendant Nos 3 to 7 are junior to the plaintiff respondent It is also clear and evident from the Office Order No 97 dated 221068 that the qualifica tion for promotion to the post of Line Superintendent from Line Man is either holding certificate or diploma in Elec trical Engineering from any recognised institute or 74 having passed 112 years course in the electrical trade of Electrician Line ManWire Man from recognised Industrial Training Institute and are matriculates and have worked as Line Man for four years continuously and immediately before the promotion
80A C 2
The plaintiff respondent who is an Arts Graduate and have ITI Certificate in the trade of electrician two years  duration and also have National Apprentice Certifi cate in the trade of Line Man 3 years  duration is eligible for promotion to the post of Line Superintendent as he has fulfilled all the requisite qualifications
All the line men either diploma holders or non diploma holders are performing the same kind of work and duties and they belong to the same cadre having commonjoint seniority list for promotion to the post of Line Superintendent
The Orders dated 1271977 being Order No 73 promoting defendant Nos 3 4 and 5 as well as Office Order No 898 dated 37877 promoting defend ant Nos 6 and 7 on the basis of quota from diploma holders as fixed by the order of the State Electricity Board dated 9574 is wholly arbitrary illegal discriminatory and violative of the equality clause contained in articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in as much as it purports to promote defendant Nos 3 to 7 who are admittedly junior to the plaintiff respondent in service as Line Man in the State Electricity Board
80D G Shujat Ali s case  at 480 followed
There is no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court affirming the judgment and decree of the Courts below