Supreme Court of India
Haryana State Electricity Board And Anr vs Ram Gopal And Anr on 20 March, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 645, 1995 AIR SCW 4660, 1996 LAB. I. C. 587, (1995) 2 SCR 817 (SC), 1995 (2) SCC(SUPP) 266, (1997) 10 JT 524 (SC), 1995 (2) SCR 817, 1995 SCC (SUPP) 2 266, (1995) 3 SCT 321, (1995) 3 SCJ 154, (1995) 2 SERVLR 426, (1995) 30 ATC 80, 1995 SCC (L&S) 799
Bench: K. Ramaswamy, B.L. Hansaria
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4156 of 1995 PETITIONER: HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. RESPONDENT: RAM GOPAL AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/03/1995 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY & B.L. HANSARIA JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT 1995 (1) SCR 817 The following Order of the Court was delivered:
Leave granted.
Admittedly, the respondents were appointed as Assistant Linemen. Preceding October 10, 1988, the rule in vogue was that 15% of the quota was reserved for the Assistant Linemen for promotion as Linemen on the basis of the seniority. On October 10, 1988 a new promotion policy has been evolved in exercise of the statutory power called "revised recruitment and promotion policy" and the criteria has been laid down for promotion to the post of linemen.
Rule 13.1 provides thus:
"The recruitment will be by promotion from amongst Assistant Linemen working in respective circles on seniority-cum-merit basis. Their seniority will be on circle level basis as here-to-fore."
Thus, it could be seen that for promotion from the post of Assistant Lineman to the post of Lineman, the criteria is seniority-cum-merit and the pre-existing policy of reservation of 15% quota to the Assistant Lineman with Matriculation with I.T.I, has been dispensed with. All promotions have been made on par and all linemen working in the circle would be eligible for consideration for promotion in the respective circle on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.
The first appellate court and the High Court, therefore were in error is holding that the pre-existing right of the promotion with 15% quota to the Assistant Lineman for promotion to the post of Lineman continued, since the notification dated 10,10.1988 was only in partial modification and not in supersession of the pre-existing policy. That view is incorrect and the policy has not been properly appreciated as such. It is seen that the revised policy is a complete code in itself and it did not leave any gap to be filled in by any pre-existing policy.
Under these circumstances, we have no option but to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 760/94 dated 23.9.94, confirming the judgment and decree of the appellate court. The judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the Suit No, 1401, dated 21.9,92 stands upheld. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout.