IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7549 of 1990 Date of decision: 22.03.2010 Ram Singh and others ….Petitioners versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and another …Respondents II. Civil Writ Petition No.1857 of 1989 Jaswant Singh Kailay and another ….Petitioners versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others …Respondents III. Civil Writ Petition No.2459 of 1989 K.K.Sood ….Petitioner versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: Ms. Anjali, Advocate, for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. ( in CWP Nos.1857 and 2459 of 1989) Mr.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners. (in CWP No.7549 of 1990). Mr. Sukhdip Singh Brar, Advocate, for the respondents. (in CWP No.7549 of 1990) Mr. D.S.Chahal, Advocate, for the respondents. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ----- Civil Writ Petition No.7549 of 1990 - 2 - K.Kannan, J 1. All the three petitions address the same issue relating to the entitlement of the respective petitioners for promotion to a higher post of Superintendent Grade-II from the post of Assistants in the establishment of the respondent-Electricity Board on a plea that persons junior to the petitioners, were being considered for promotion. 2. The writ petitions came to be filed at a time when the petitioners apprehended that on a vacancy that arose in the post of Superintendent Grade-II by retirement of a person by name Bhagat Singh, the 2nd respondent was being considered for promotion, who, according to the petitioners, was not eligible for consideration. Bhagat Singh belonged to the scheduled caste category but there was yet another post also available in the general category to which by virtue of the retirement of another employee, the petitioners claimed that one of them was entitled to consideration. The non-consideration of the petitioners, when the post existed was wholly unjustified. The petitioners themselves have stated that they assumed that they were not being considered only by virtue of the fact that they have not passed departmental accounts examination but, according to them, they had been specifically exempted from passing such an examination. The petitioners contend that the channel of promotion in the State of Punjab as well as in the respondent-Electricity Board was the post of Clerk in the lowest grade to Upper Division Clerk, still higher post was Assistant, Senior Assistant, Deputy Superintendent, Under Secretary and so on. The Deputy Superintendent post was bifurcated and the lower post Civil Writ Petition No.7549 of 1990 - 3 - among the two was Superintendent Grade-II and still higher post was Superintendent Grade-I. Referring to the parity of their service with the State service and the relevant rules governing the State service as per Class-II (Subordinate Posts) Rules of 1952, the petitioners were contend that the said rules relating to passing of departmental examination had not been made applicable to them and that in any event a decision had been taken in the year, 1971 to the effect that 20% of the posts of UDCs shall reserved for those persons, who could not and did not pass the examination, but who had worked for certain number of years as LDCs. The petitioners would refer to a decision taken by the Board brought through a memo dated 24.05.1971 that 20% of future vacancies of UDCs shall be reserved for persons, who were in lower grade and who had not passed the departmental examination, provided that as a LDC, he shall be a matriculate and he should have at least 6 years service and if he is a graduate LDC, he should have at least 3 years experience. 3. The contentions of the petitioners have been refuted by the Electricity Board by filing a written statement by referring to the fact that the petitioners were governed by the Punjab State Electricity Board, Ministerial Services Class-III Regulations, 1985 and as per the Regulation 8, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to pass departmental examination for claiming further promotion. Pointing out to the fact that the petitioners had been promoted as Assistants from unqualified UDCs against 20% quota, as per the instructions dated 24.05.1971 referred to in the writ petition that such Assistants, who claimed the benefit of the aforesaid memo could claim further promotion to the next higher post Civil Writ Petition No.7549 of 1990 - 4 - only if they had passed the departmental accounts examination for ministerial establishment. The exemption from pass was available only up to the level of UDC. It is further contended by the respondents that the petitioners themselves are barred by laches in view of the fact that the conditions incorporated in the 1985 Regulations had never been challenged by the petitioners all along and they could not claim any further promotion. Regulation 8 that deals with promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II from Senior Assistant specifically prescribe the minimum qualification to be a pass in the departmental accounts examination for ministerial establishment. Regulation 8 clearly provides that exemption is available only upto reaching the post of Head Office Assistant and not further. 4. On the admitted premise that none of the petitioners had passed the departmental accounts examination, they were not entitled for being considered for further promotion as Superintendent Grade-II. The petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to any favourable consideration and the writ petitions are dismissed as without any merit. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 22.03.2010 sanjeev