LPA No. 1845 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1845 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 10, 2011 K.K. Sood …Appellant Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Sarita Sangar, Advocate for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 22.03.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that in terms of Regulation 8 of the Punjab State Electricity Board, Ministerial Services Class-III Regulations, 1985 (for brevity 'the 1985 Regulations') the appellant has failed to pass the departmental accounts examination for ministerial establishment and therefore, he was not entitled for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II. The learned Single Judge opined citing Regulation 8 of the 1985 Regulations that it was incumbent upon the appellant to pass departmental LPA No. 1845 of 2010 (O&M) -2- examination for claiming further promotion. The argument that the appellant was promoted as Assistant from unqualified UDC against 20% quota in accordance with the instructions dated 24.05.1971 was rejected by the learned Single Judge with the observations that it was confined only upto the level of UDC and for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II from that of Senior Assistant, the provisions of Regulation 8 of the 1985 Regulations were required to be fulfilled. The learned Single Judge further observed that Regulation 8 of the 1985 Regulations clearly provides that exemption is available only in respect of Head Office Assistant and not other. 2. We have perused the Regulation 8 of the 1985 Regulations, which has been placed on record as Annexure R-1/1 and have also gone through the impugned judgment. We are satisfied that there is no error of law or jurisdiction committed by the learned Single Judge to reach the conclusion that the appellant was not qualified for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II because he failed to pass departmental accounts examination in terms of Regulation 8 of the 1985 Regulation. 3. Mr. Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant has, however, placed reliance on the letter dated 15.03.1958 to argue that when the appellant was inducted in service from the Public Works Department (Electricity Branch), there was a number of conditions agreed between the parties and the aforesaid letter (P-2) must be read to mean that no condition of passing departmental examination could be imposed. We have been taken through the LPA No. 1845 of 2010 (O&M) -3- aforesaid letter and we are unable to find any such condition in that letter which may lead to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to automatic promotion without qualifying the necessary examination prescribed under the Rules/ Regulations. Accordingly, we find no substance in the aforesaid arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant. 4. As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 5. In view of the dismissal of appeal on merit, we do not wish to pass any order on the application seeking condonation of 46 days' delay in filing of the appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE May 10, 2011 Atul