Case: Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. The State of Punjab &amp; Others

effect from September 1, 1956. The case of the writ petitioners confirmation in Class II was taken up in 1968 on receipt of his report for the period ending March 31, 1956 from the Himachal Pradesh Government and he was then confirmed. It was admitted that the post in Class I fell vacant with effect from September 1, 1956 due to the confirmation of T.S. Madan as Executive Engineer on June 13, 1961. Another plea that was taken was that the writ petitioner was confirmed with effect from April 7, 1957 on completion of is period of probation for one year in place of T. S. Madan. It was denied that Rule 7-A was applicable to the writ petitioner. As the writ petitioner had been confirmed in Class I on June 27, 1963 with effect from April 7, 1957 respondents 3 to 9 had become senior to him under the provisions of Rule 7-A. In the class of Executive Engineers also the writ petitioner became junior to respondents 3 to 9 since they had been confirmed with effect from earlier dates. 4. The High Court was of the view that when B. K. Puri the writ petitioner was confirmed in Class II with effect from October 1, 1955 by the order dated August 18, 1958 he indisputably became senior to respondents 3 to 9 in Class II. It was found that there was a vacancy in Class I with effect from September 1, 1956 and the writ petitioner could have been easily confirmed from that date. But the reason given by the appellant for not confirming him earlier than April 7, 1957 was that he could ot be as confirmed unless he had completed one years probation with effect from 6-4-1956 when he had been promoted to Class I in an officiating capacity. It was, however, conceded by counsel for the appellant that there was no rule fixing this probationary period and that in the case of some of the other respondents no such rule was followed of completing a period of probation after promotion i.e. in the case of M/s. S. L. Sood and Pritam Singh who were confirmed with effect from September 1, 1956 when they had been promoted to Class 1 in an officiating capacity in April 1956. In other words they had been confirmed in less than five months period from the date of their officiating appointment after promotion. On this the High Court held that the reason given by the appellant for not confirming B.K. Puri with effect from September 1, 1956 from which date respondents 3 to 9 had been confirmed had no basis, and was extraneous and irrelevant. For these reasons the order confirming B. K. Puri with effect from April 7, 1957 was considered to be illegal. Another matter pointed out by the High Court was that B. K. Puri had passed the Safety Code Examination on October 8, 1956. There was no reason, therefore, for making an order relating to his confirmation in Class II on August 18, 1958 whereas the other respondents were confirmed in May 1956. This is what the High Court proceeded to observe: Be that as it may, when the petitioner was admittedly confirmed in that Class (II) on 18-8-1958, his case for confirmation in Class I should have been immediately taken up. In this connection, it would be pertinent to observe that K. B. Bhatia was confirmed in Class II on 13-1-1960 and on the same date he was confirmed in Class I also. 5. On the question of laches various representation and petitions which B. K. Puri had been making consistently were referred to by the High Court and it was considered that it was not a case where relief could be declined on the ground of laches or delay. The High Court quashed the order dated June 27, 1963 confirming B. K. Puri in Class I with effect from April 7, 1957 and issued a writ of Mandamus to consider the case for confirmation in Class I with effect from September 1, 1956 or a date earlier than that and refix his seniority vis-a-vis respondents 3 to 9 in Class I and that of Executive Engineers in the light of interpretation of Rule 7-A as given in the judgment. It may be mentioned that this interpretation was the same as has been accepted by us as correct in the connected appeal i.e. C.A. 456 of 1970. 6. It appears to us that the judgment of the High Court in this case does not call for any interference. The main stress that was laid by the learned counsel for the State was on the laches and delay on the part of B. K. Puri in filing the petition in the High Court. From the resume of the various dates which has already been given it is apparent that he kept on making representations and moving the appropriate authorities at all stages and the only reason which has been suggested for confirming him in Class I subsequent to respondents 3 to 9 is that he had been passed over on the ground which has already been mentioned. The High Court has dealt with that aspect fully and in view of the interpretation of the proviso to Rule 7-A which has already been discussed in the connected appeal by us it is difficult to disagree with the High Court that there was no justification for not confirming B. K. Puri in Class I from the same date on which the other respondents (3 to 9) were confirmed, namely, September 1, 1956. There are several distinguishing features in this case from the connected appeal (C.A. 456/70) for not applying the rule in S. G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, (1967) 2 SCR 703 = (AIR 1967 SC 1427 ) about not disturbing the seniority of those Executive Engineers who were confirmed by orders made some years prior to the filing of the writ petition by B. K. Puri.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]6. It appears to us that the judgment of the High Court in this case does not call for any interference.The main stress that was laid by the learned counsel for the State was on the laches and delay on the part of B. K. Puri in filing the petition in the High Court.From the resume of the various dates which has already been given it is apparent that he kept on making representations and moving the appropriate authorities at all stages and the only reason which has been suggested for confirming him in Class I subsequent to respondents 3 to 9 is that he had been passed over on the ground which has already been mentioned. The High Court has dealt with that aspect fully and in view of the interpretation of the proviso to RuleA which has already been discussed in the connected appeal by us it is difficult to disagree with the High Court that there was no justification for not confirming B. K. Puri in Class I from the same date on which the other respondents (3 to 9) were confirmed, namely, September 1, 1956. There are several distinguishing features in this case from the connected appeal (C.A. 456/70) for not applying the rule in S. G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, (1967) 2 SCR 703   = (AIR 1967 SC 1427  ) about not disturbing the seniority of those Executive Engineers who were confirmed by orders made some years prior to the filing of the writ petition by B. K. Puri.