Patna High Court
Md. Asif Hussain & Ors vs The Bihar State Power ( Holding ) Company ... on 29 August, 2018
Author: Shivaji Pandey
Bench: Shivaji Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11096 of 2018
===========================================================
1. Md. Asif Hussain Son of Md. Rashid Hussain Resident of at & P.O. Pokhraira,
P.S. Manpur, District- Sitamarhi.
2. Vishwajeet Kumar Son of Baleshwar Prasad Resident of Village- Kendua, P.S.
Sirdala, District- Nawadah.
3. Ranjeet Kumar Son of Upendra Prasad Sinha Resident of Mitra Mandal Colony,
P.S. Phulwari, District- Patna.
4. Abhay Kumar Son of Birendra Bajpayee Resident of Village- Sihorwa P.S.
Kotwa, Distict- East Champaran, Motihari.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar State Power ( Holding ) Company Limited Limited through its
Chairman.
2. The Chairman, Bihar State Power(Holding)Company Limited, Patna.
3. The General Manager, (HR/Adm.), Bihar State Power (Holding) Company
Limited, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
4. Bihar Polytechnic Students Association, situated at B-Block, 103, Vidhayak
Parisar, Daroga Rai Path, District Patna through its President, Shri Anubhav Raj,
son of Shri Devendra Rai, resident of At-Gangapur Narauli, P.S. Bakhtiyarpur,
District Patna.
5. Ramesh Kumar, son of Shri Kailash Rajak, resident of At Kakwara, P.O.
Kakwara, P.S. Banka, District Banka
................Intervenors/Respondents.
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12088 of 2018
===========================================================
Ashwini Ranjan, son of Pramod Kumar Singh, resident of Village- Hasanura, PO +
P.S. Beur, District Patna
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Department of Energy State
of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, State of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The General Manager (H.R/Adm. BSPHCL) Vidyut Bhawan Bailey Road, Near
Income Tax Gomenber, Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12382 of 2018
===========================================================
Shailputri, daughter of Sri S.N. Singh, resident of House No.4/A, Type V,
Macdonald Road, New Capital Area Patna 800001 (Bihar)
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
2 /43
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Bihar State Power ( Holding ) Company Limited, having its office at Vidyut
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 800001 (Bihar) through the Chairman-cum-Managing
Director
2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Power (Holding) Company
Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 800001 (Bihar)
3. The General Manager (HR/ADMIN), Bihar State Power (Holding) Company
Limited, General Administrative Department, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
800001 (Bihar)
4. The Officer on Special Duty (HR/ADMIN), Bihar State Power (Holding
Company Limited, General Administrative Department, Vidyut Bhawan, Baile y
Road, patna 800001 (Bihar)
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
(In CWJC No.11096 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Bava Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent(BSPHCL)/s : Mr. A.K. Oja, Standing Counsel
Mr. A.K. Karna, Advocate
For the Intervener : Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Advocate
Mr. Ujjawal Bhushan, Advocate
Mr. Kushagra Raj, Advocate.
(In CWJC No.12088 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Kinkar Kumar, SC 9
For the Company : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate
(In CWJC No.12382 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Munna Pd Dixit, Advocate
Mr. S.K. Dixit, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chaubey, Advocate
Mrs. Swastika, Advocate.
Mr. Sunil Kumar
Mr. Shailendra Kumar
For the Company :
Mr. Anand Kumar OJha. SC
Mr. A. K. Karna, Advocate.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 29.8.2018
Heard the parties.
2. In all three cases common issues have been raised and
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
3 /43
with the consent of the parties all the case are being heard together
and disposed of at the admission stage by this common order.
3. For convenience, the facts of case of C.W.J.C. No. 11096
of 2018 is taken into consideration, whenever there will be need
the Court may take help of the facts mentioned in another writ
petition.
4 An interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 4744 of 2018
has been filed by the persons who are holding the qualification of
Diploma in Electrical Engineering have objected the application
filed by the petitioners having stated that action of the Power
Holding Company is correct in refusing to allow the Degree
Holders to participate in selection process.
In view of the plea that has been taken by the interveners,
I.A. No. 4744 of 2018 is allowed and they have been heard
accordingly.
5. In the present case, the petitioners are the degree holder
B.Tech Electrical Engineering are challenging the notification of
Clause 1 of the employment notice no. 6 of 2018 published in the
month of June-2018 by the Bihar State Power (Holding) Company
Limited (hereinafter referred to as „Power Holding Company‟),
whereby the qualification for the Junior Electrical Engineer has
been limited to those who have full time 3 years Diploma Course
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
4 /43
in the Electrical from a recognized Institute / College duly
recognized by State Government / Central Government approved
by AICTE. Further a prayer has made that the decision of limiting
the qualification only upto Diploma, amounts to exclusion of the
candidate holding the higher degree which is against to the general
instruction issued by the Power Holding Company in which apart
from persons holding Diploma Degree, the candidates having
qualification of Degree were also declared eligible and further
prayer has been made for a declaration of the Power Holding
Company excluding the higher qualification then the Diploma is
completely unsustainable and requires interference by this Court.
6. All petitioners are Degree Holders in B.Sc. Engineering
in electrical branch and they are intending to participate in the
recruitment process meant for appointment of Junior Electrical
Engineer and they have taken a plea that the action of the Board is
a calculated move excluding the person holding the qualification of
B. Tech to participate in the fray of selection of Diploma Holder is
completely arbitrary exercise of power, having stated that, in the
year 2016 the Power Holding Company had published an
advertisement for the posts of Junior Engineer, in that selection,
the minimum qualification was fixed for the post of Junior
Engineer, three years Diploma course or four years of degree
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
5 /43
course in the branch of Electrical Engineer and wherein the Degree
Holders were allowed to participate in selection of Junior
Electrical Engineering, further stated that for selection of Junior
Engineer including recruitment on different posts, the Power
Holding Company was intending out source selection process to
Agency and to select the Human Resources Agency for that
purpose the Power Holding Company has issued the Request For
Proposal from its department of General Administration. In the
Request For Proposal, the details of several posts corresponding
qualification have been mentioned for the recruitment in those
categories of post and one of the post mentioned therein is Junior
Electrical Engineering, wherein the minimum qualification has
been mentioned full time three years Diploma in Electrical or
Electronics in recognized University/Institution from State
Government and Central Government or four years Engineering
Degree (BE/B.Tech/B.Sc. Engg.) in Electrical in Electrical or
Electronics from the recognized University / Institute approved by
AICTE.
7. The Power Holding Company published an
employment notice vide notice no. 6 of 2018 for recruitment on
400 posts of Junior Electrical Engineering, provided in Clause 1 of
the employment notice the requisite minimum qualification is
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
6 /43
three years Diploma in Electrical from a recognized
institute/college duly recognized by State Government/Central
Government approved by AICTE and the application has to be
filled up through online process. When the petitioners opened the
window for filling up the Online application in the column of the
qualification the Power Holding Company has limited to
qualification of Full time 3 years diploma course in Electrical
Engineer from recognized institute/college duly recognized by
State Government/Central Government approved by AICTE no
option has been provided for the Degree Holders course to submit
his Online application, the hard copy has been annexed as
Annexure 5 showing that only caption has been made for the
Diploma Holders and there is no caption meant for the Degree
Holders.
8. The petitioners have challenged the rationality of the
Power Holding Company in confining the qualification to three
years Diploma course for Junior Engineer excluded and not
provided the Degree Holders to participate in selection of Junior
Engineer Electrical.
9. The Power Holding Company filed its counter affidavit
and submitted that the Board has taken a policy decision that for
recruitment of Junior Engineer Electrical it will be limited to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
7 /43
three years Diploma Holders and it will not be extended to the
Degree Holders as this policy has been taken in consideration of
past experience that those Degree Holders who are selected but in
quick succession they used to resign from the post as they got an
opportunity of better avenue ultimately, the Board is the sufferer
on account of dropping out from the cadre of Junior Engineer.
Several examples have been given, the State of Bihar by way of
policy decided, for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer,
division has been made Diploma Holder 75 percent and Degree
Holder 25 percent. Further stated that Ministry of Railway, U. P.
Power Corporation, West Bengal Electricity Board all have
prescribed the qualification for the appointment of Junior Engineer
as Diploma Holder, aforesaid organizations have excluded the
qualification of four years B. Tech course from recruitment
submitted that, in such view of the matter, the decision which has
been taken by the Power Holding Company is based on rationality
taking into consideration past experience there is no unreasonablity
in excluding Degree Holders from participation in the selection of
Junior Engineer. If the Degree Holder is allowed to participate in
selection, Diploma Holder will be marginalized as four years
Degree Holder will eat away the major chunk of post of Junior
Engineer Electrical.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
8 /43
10. Another question has been raised, earlier in 2016, the
Power Holding Company has not excluded the Degree Holders to
participate in selection rather they were allowed as in the
advertisement it has been mentioned in the column the minimum
qualification, fixed three years Diploma course in Electrical
Engineer and four years Engineering Degree (BE/B.Tech/B.Sc.
Engg.) which is pursuance of resolution no. 44-14 passed by the
Board Director of Power Holding Company which was notified
vide Office Order No.185 dated 15.2.2016 (Annexure-2©) when
this document was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for
the Power Holding Company requested for adjournment to take
instruction.
11. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the
Power Holding Company filed a supplementary counter affidavit
and brought a resolution vide office order no. 444 dated 05.6.2016
which stipulates that this office order has been issued in
supersession of office order 185 dated 15.02.2016 whereby and
whereunder the qualification for recruitment of Junior Engineer
Electrical and Junior Engineer (civil) has been modified as this
matter is only confined to the Junior Engineer Electrical. It will be
relevant to mention the amendment of resolution which runs as
follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
9 /43
"Junior Engineer Electricals, full time 3 years Diploma in
Electrical from a recognized Institute / College duly recognized by
State Government / Central Government approved by AICTE".
12. So the thrust has been made by the Power Holding
Company that by this amendment the person who is holding the
Degree in Electrical Engineer will not be eligible to participate in
the recruitment of Junior Engineer as it has been confined to those
who are only holding the qualification of Diploma in Electrical
Engineering, then the question arose that how the Chairman will
have a jurisdiction to over turn or supersede the decision of the
Board of Director of the Power Holding Company which is earlier
taken decision providing an opportunity to Degree Holder, as
qualified person to participate in the recruitment of Junior
Engineer and it has not been confined to the person who is holding
only qualification of Diploma in the Electronic Engineering. So,
the subsequent resolution cannot be superseded or cannot be
recognized as valid piece of document prescribing qualification,
confining to Diploma Holders and further question has been raised
under what authority Chairman-cum-Managing Director would
exercise the power for passing such resolution in supercession of
earlier resolution.
13. The Power Holding Company in order to substantiate the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
10 /43
authority of Chairman, showing source of power, produced the
notification vide memo no.109 dated 16.9.1992 which has been
issued in exercise of power conferred under Section 79(K) of the
Electrical (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟)
wherein the Board has empowered the Chairman of the Board in
anticipation of Board‟s approval and to take suitable action as it
deem fit in the interest or of Board/public interest in pursuance of
the Board‟s Resolution No.6581 dated 26.8.1982, subject to the
following conditions: the matter is of urgent nature and in Board‟s
interest. Further that the meeting of the Board is not likely to be
held in near future nature.
14. So, it is submitted under that source of power,
emanating from this authorization made by the Board to the
Chairman in the matter of urgent nature and is in the interest of the
Board, the Chairman will have a jurisdiction to frame the
regulation under Section 79(K) of the Act. Further he has
submitted that after the enforcement of Electricity Act, 2005 led
to unbundling of erstwhile Board, assets and liability was
transferred to the Government subsequently it was transferred to
the Power Holding Company and other subsidiaries, has placed
reliance on the notification no.17 dated 13.10.2012 which speaks
of Bihar State Electricity Reforms Transfer Scheme, 2012, drawn
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
11 /43
the attention to Clause 6.8 wherein it has been provided that
subject to the Act and this Scheme, the Power Holding Company
shall be entitled to frame the regulations governing the conditions
of personnel transferred to the subsidiary companies under this
Scheme and till such time the existing service rules/regulations
framed by the Board shall apply mutatis-mutandis.
15. In nutshell submission has been made though earlier
Diploma Holders as well as Degree Holders were allowed to
participate in the selection of Junior Engineer, but subsequently
by policy decision it has only been confined to the Diploma Holder
and the person who is holding B.Tech degree has been excluded
from the recruitment of Junior Engineer Electrical.
16. Private respondent representing the cause of Diploma
Holders has by and large argued in the same term and tenor and
submitted that the decision has been taken by the Power Holding
Company to exclude the Degree Holders cannot be said to an
arbitrary exercise of power or any way it is discriminatory in
nature nor it is required to be interfered by this Court.
17. Submission has been raised by the petitioners that
Chairman cannot supersede or over turn the decision of the Board
when the Board has fixed a qualification it can only be modified or
superseded by the Board‟s alone, not the Chairman in view of
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
12 /43
such submission it has to be examined the provision of 79 of the
Electric Supply Act, its contour, to examine whether the Chairman
in exercise of power under Section 79(K) of the Act has
jurisdiction to modify the qualification for selection to the post of
Junior Engineer. He has further submitted that as Section 79(K) of
the Act cannot be pressed in service as Rule 79(K) of the Act does
not deal with condition of service, in view of specific provision i.e.
79 © has been provided dealing with service condition of the
employee of the Board, in such circumstances, when special
provision has been made dealing with the service condition then, in
that circumstances Rule 79(K) of the Act which is residuary in
nature cannot be applied on the principle the special will exclude
general inasmuch as 79K gives residuary power, cannot only be
exercised when item dealing with service condition has specifically
been authorized under Section 79(C) of Act.
18. The power conferred in Rule 79, as per the petitioner,
legislative in nature, and that power has been delegated to the
Board, that power can only be exercised by the Board and that
power cannot be sub-delegated.
19. In the present case the question has been raised, as to
where the person holding the qualification of B.E/B.Tech/B.Sc.
Engineering can be allowed to participate in the selection of
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
13 /43
Junior Engineer, as the employment notice prescribes, the
qualification of eligibility, Full time three years Diploma in
electrical from a recognized institute/college duly recognized by
the State Government/Central Government approved by AICTE in
view of fact, as neither there is a exclusion of higher qualification
for being entitled to participate in the recruitment process of Junior
Engineer, second point has to be decided as to whether the
Chairman-cum-Managing Director has jurisdiction to make an
amendment to the qualification which was prescribed by the
Board of Director of Power Holding company for recruitment of
Junior Engineer as in the meeting held on 31.1.2016 prescribed
the qualification of eligibility, also included the qualification of
full time 4 years BE/B.Tech./B.Sc. (Engg.) in Electrical/Electrical
& Electronics from a recognized University/Institute approved by
AICTE has been allowed to participate in the recruitment of Junior
Engineer, incidentally point has also been raised, when the statute
has empowered and authorized the highest body i.e. Board of
Director to frame the rule, can that power be sub delegated to the
Chairman for the purposes of framing the rule re-fixing the
qualification.
20. For deciding first point as has been framed this Court
will have to examine, the earlier qualification of eligibility and
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
14 /43
amendment made therein.
21. As it appears that that Bihar State Electricity Board
Junior Electrical Engineers (General) Cadre Rule, 1982 provides
the procedure for recruitment as well as the eligibility qualification
for selection to the post of Junior Engineer as in the present case
the qualification is a singular consideration for deciding the
present issue, as in the Junior Electrical Engineer (General) Cadre
Rule 1982, provides that the posts of Junior Engineer in the cadre
shall be filled up by direct recruitment from Diploma Holders in
Electrical Engineering and by absorption of those employees who
while serving the Board on the lower posts has acquired diploma
in Electrical Engineering. Appointment by direct recruitment and
by absorption was/is the mode provided for filing up the vacancies
in a calendar year in the ratio of 75-25. Rule prescribes requisite
qualification of Diploma in Electrical Engineering or the person
acquired that qualification during service period will be considered
for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer.
22. After enforcement of Electricity Act, 2005 the Board of
Director of Power Holding Company Limited in its 44th meeting
made amendment in the requisite qualification prescribed the
educational qualifications of legibility for different posts. But in
the present case the qualification of Junior Engineer is relevant for
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
15 /43
consideration for present case, for the post of Junior Engineer, the
only qualification of three years Diploma in Electrical Engineer
from a Institute/College recognized by State Government/Central
Government has been amended, included those who have
qualification of full time Four years course in BE/B.Tech./B.Sc.
(Engg.) in Electrical/Electrical & Electronics from a recognized
University/Institute approved by AICTE. The Power Holding
Company decided to make recruitment on different posts through
H.R. Agency in pursuance thereof, for selection of Agency,
invited application, in the document of Request of Proposal,
different qualification has been mentioned for different posts for
recruitment through online examination for BSP(H)CL. Under the
heading for post of Junior Engineer Electrical, the qualification of
full time 3 years Diploma in Electrical from a recognized
Institute/College duly recognized by the State Government/Central
Government or full time 4 years BE/B.Tech./B.Sc.(Engg.) in
Electrical/Electrical & Electronics from a recognized
University/Institute approved by AICTE has been allowed to
participate in the recruitment of Junior Engineer. But the
Employment Notice No.6/18 for recruitment and selection of
Junior Engineer the requisite educational qualification has been
mentioned, full time 3 years Diploma in Electrical Engineering
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
16 /43
from a recognized Institute/College duly recognized by the State
Government/Central Government approved by AICTE. In this
qualification it does not provide any bar for a candidate for
participation to those having BE/B.Tech qualification. Point has
been raised by the petitioner that employment notice cannot fix the
eligibility criteria de hors to the recruitment rule framed by the
Board of Director and the amendment made to qualification
through resolution no. 444 dated 5.6.2018 whereby the Chairman-
cum-Managing Director has modified the qualification as the
qualification of four years BE/B.Tech. has been dropped from the
recruitment rule. The power of Chairman-cum-Managing Director
to make an amendment to the Rule will be examined at a later
stage as presently it is only confined as to whether the person who
is degree holder can participate in the selection of Junior Engineer.
23. On scrutiny of the qualification fixed either under the
amended rule or the advertisement inviting application from
interested person to participate in the recruitment does not debar
Four years Degree Holder or prescribes the qualification of
Diploma of three years in Electrical Engineer, will only be entitled
to participate in the fray, unless the qualification by specific term
debars the higher qualification or by specific stipulation, only the
qualification of three years Diploma in Electrical Engineering has
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
17 /43
been mentioned in the rule or in the advertisement, only Diploma
has been allowed to participate, in absence of such prohibition or
confinement of that degree, it cannot be said that the person
holding higher qualification will not be allowed to participate in
the selection of Junior Engineer. For the post of Assistant Engineer
or Executive Engineer the minimum qualification has been
prescribed, four years degree course in the BE/B.Tech and there is
provision for those persons having qualification of degree of
BE/Bech, will be entitled for promotion as Assistant Electrical
Engineer. So it pre-supposes that the person who has entered into
service as Junior Engineer will have an opportunity for promotion
to the higher grade of Electrical Engineer. The issue of minimum
requisite qualification can be considered from different angles, in
the back drop of fact that these days even a candidate from
humble background used to acquire qualification of B. Tech.
degree through bank assistance if restriction is invoked confining
the qualification of Diploma then last segment of society who
acquired the qualification of B. Tech. by struggle and toil will go
waste by depriving them for participation in recruitment, thereby
taking away right, will be of an employment put them in difficult
situation to those has to return the loan amount to the bank. So on
two counts, it can not construed that Degree Holder cannot be
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
18 /43
allowed to participate in the recruitment of Junior Engineer as this
qualification has not been debarred to participate as well as Power
Holding Company has not restricted the qualification of Diploma
in Electrical Engineering only, in such view of the matter, the plea
of restricting qualification to Diploma cannot be accepted that the
candidate having higher qualification has been excluded from
participation and only confined to the person who has qualification
of Diploma in Electrical Engineering.
24. The aforesaid view as mentioned hereinabove is
fortified from different judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
and this Court in the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and
others. V. District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur and others, reported
in AIR 2000 SC 919. The Apex Court has taken view in
paragraph 18 of the said judgment that the appointment of a
candidate to the post of peon cannot be restricted to the
qualification of Class VII and persons having better qualification
cannot be excluded from participation in that context, the Court
has held that higher qualification cannot become disadvantage to
the candidate. If an employee having higher qualification does not
perform the duties attached to the post, disciplinary action can
certainly be taken against him. An employer cannot throw up his
hands in despair and devise a method denying appointment to a
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
19 /43
person who otherwise meets the requisite qualifications on the
ground that if appointed, he would not perform his duties as the
qualification prescribed is minimum. Further the Court taken a
view that if the appointment of a candidate to the post of peon is
restricted to his having qualified up to Standard VII he will have
no chance of promotion to the post of Regional Language Section
Writer and a Clerk, it is not that qualifications required for
Regional Language Section Writer and Clerk are to be acquired by
a peon during the course of his service. The Court has taken a note
of the fact that some persons working therein, for appointment to
the post of clerk, since they had acquired the qualification for that
post, prayed for their matter be considered for appointment to the
post of clerk. So the persons from humble background have
acquired a better qualification cannot be deprived for participation
in the selection to the post of Junior Engineer. It will be relevant to
quote paragraph nos. 18 to 23 of the aforesaid judgment:
"18.If the appointment of a candidate to the post of peon
is restricted to his having qualified up to Standard VII he
will have no chance of promotion to the post of Regional
Language Section Writer or a Clerk. It is not that
qualifications required for Regional Language Section
Writer and Clerk are to be acquired by a peon during the
course of his service. During the course of hearing we
were referred to a few applications submitted by peons
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
20 /43
who are already working wherein they had prayed for
their being considered for appointment to post of clerks
since they had acquired requisite qualifications for that
post. On this an argument is sought to be based that
those peons with higher qualifications are not interested
in their work as peons. We can give no credence to such
an argument when Recruitment Rules themselves
prescribe that post of a clerk can be a promotional post
for a peon having requisite qualification. There is
nothing wrong if a peon sends in his request for being
considered to be promoted as a clerk.
19. We do not know what are the duties attached to the
post of a peon. But perhaps one thing peons are not
required to do the work of sweepers or gardeners.
Qualifications for gardeners and sweepers have been
separately provided in the Recruitment Rules and the
only qualification for both the categories of these posts is
"good physique and also to carry out the duties attached
to the post.''
20. If an employee does not perform the duties attached
to the post disciplinary proceedings can certainly be
taken against him. An employer cannot throw up his
hands in despair and devise a method denying
appointment to a person who otherwise meets the
requisite qualifications on the ground that if appointed,
he would not perform his duties. Qualification prescribed
is minimum. Higher qualification cannot become a
disadvantage to the candidate.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
21 /43
21. A criterion which has the effect of denying a
candidate his right to be considered for the post on the
principle that he is having higher qualification, than
prescribed cannot be rational. We have not been able to
appreciate as to why those candidates who possessed
qualifications equivalent to SSC examination could also
not be considered. We are saying this on the facts of the
case in hand and should not be understood as laying
down a rule of universal application.
22. We do not think, therefore, that the criterion four as
laid by the Advisory Committee constituted under the
Rules and upheld by the High Court is in any way
reasonable or rational. By adopting such a course High
Court has put its stamp of approval to another type of
reservation for recruitment to the service which is not
permissible. A poor person can certainly acquire
qualification equivalent to S.S.C. Examination and not
that he cannot go beyond Standard VII. Perhaps by
restricting appointment to candidate having studied only
up to Standard VII High Court may not be encouraging
dropouts.
23. Considering whole aspect of the matter we must upset
the fourth criterion laid by the Advisory Committee.
Appellants have been wrongly denied of their right for
being considered for the post of peon. However, in the
counter affidavit filed before us by the Additional
Registrar (Legal), High Court on behalf of the District &
Sessions Judge and the High Court it has been stated that
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
22 /43
process of selection of peon has already been completed
and the candidate from the select list are being posted as
peons. In this view of the matter, we would not like to
disturb the appointment of the candidates already
selected. Thus, though we set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court, we will not issue any further
directions for cancelling the appointments of the
candidates already selected and for starting of the whole
selection process afresh".
25. Reliance can also be placed to the following judgments:
(i) Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and others. V. District & Sessions
Judge, Nagpur and others, reported in 2000 (2) BLJ 581 and Y.
Srinivasa Rao v. J. Veeraiah and Ors., reported in 1992(2) SCR
780.
26. In all those decision identical view has been taken that
persons having higher qualification cannot be disqualification for
participation in recruitment.
27. In the case of Jyoti K.K. and others v. Kerala Public
Service Commission and others, reported in (2010) 15 SCC 596
the identical problem arose about refusing to accept the
application on the person holding B. Tech degree in Electrical
Engineering, on the basis that they were not possessing necessary
qualifications the Commission took the view that they are not
qualified person to participate in the selection. There also, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
23 /43
question arose whether possession of higher qualification is
disqualification and, therefore, non consideration of their
candidature can be said to be valid exercise of jurisdiction. There
also the Commission had taken stand that graduates in Engineering
or persons possessing other qualifications may not be taken as
higher qualifications, they are not equivalent qualifications
prescribed for that post and persons who possessed higher
qualifications can only be taken note of in cases where they
acquired such higher qualifications after acquiring the prescribed
qualifications.
28. In this case also an advertisement was made prescribing
requisite qualification as Diploma Holders of recognized
University. The High Court took the view that person holding
degree of B. Tech is not requisite qualification and further held
that the qualification possessed by B. Tech. does not presuppose
the acquisition of prescribed lower qualifications and when
qualifications have been prescribed for a post, the same cannot be
diluted and persons not possessing those qualifications cannot be
permitted to be eligible. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has approved
the view of the High Court that qualification has been set out
under the relevant Rules, the same cannot be in any manner
whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted and
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
24 /43
also justified the view of the High Court that the higher
qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the acquisition of
the lower qualification prescribed for that post in order to attract
that part of the Rule to the effect that such of those higher
qualification which presuppose the acquisition of the lower
qualifications prescribed for that post shall also be sufficient for
the post. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has further held if a person
has acquired higher qualification in the same faculty, such
qualifications can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition
of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In the same
manner qualification for the post of Assistant Engineer the
requisite qualification is B. Tech which is post of promotion for
Junior Engineer prescribes qualification of Diploma in Electrical
Engineer, in that circumstances, the person holding B. Tech.
qualification which is higher qualification presuppose the
acquisition of lower qualification will not be a bar for participation
of those having better qualification and will not be excluded from
consideration for recruitment to the post of appointment of Junior
Engineer. It will be relevant to quote paragraph nos. 7 to 9 of the
aforesaid judgment:
"7. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that
when a qualification has been set out under the relevant
rules, the same cannot be in any manner whittled down
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
25 /43
and a different qualification cannot be adopted. The
High Court is also justified in stating that the higher
qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the
acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for that
post in order to attract that part of the rule to the effect
that such of those higher qualifications which
presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications
prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the
post. If a person has acquired higher qualifications in
the same faculty, such qualification can certainly be
stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower
qualifications prescribed for the post. In this case it may
not be necessary to seek far.
8. Under the relevant rules, for the post of assistant
engineer, degree in electrical engineering of Kerala
University or other equivalent qualification recognised
or equivalent thereto has been prescribed. For a higher
post when a direct recruitment has to be held, the
qualification that has to be obtained, obviously gives an
indication that such qualification is definitely higher
qualification than what is prescribed for the lower post,
namely, the post of sub-engineer. In that view of the
matter the qualification of degree in electrical
engineering presupposes the acquisition of the lower
qualification of diploma in that subject prescribed for
the post, shall be considered to be sufficient for that
post.
9. In the event the government is of the view that only
diploma holders should have applied to post of sub-
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
26 /43
engineers but not all those who possess higher
qualifications, either this rule should have excluded in
respect of candidates who possess higher qualifications
or the position should have been made clear that degree
holder shall not be eligible to apply for such post. When
that position is not clear but on the other hand rules do
not disqualify per se the holders of higher qualifications
in the same faculty, it becomes clear that the rule could
be understood in an appropriate manner as stated
above. In that view of the matter the order of the High
Court cannot be sustained. In this case we are not
concerned with the question whether all those who
possess such qualifications could have applied or not.
When statutory rules have been published and those
rules are applicable, it presupposes that everyone
concerned with such appointments will be aware of such
rules or make himself aware of the rules before making
appropriate applications. The High Court, therefore, is
not justified in holding that recruitment of appellants
would amount to fraud on the public".
29. In view of above discussion, in the present case also,
the person holding qualification of B. Tech. Engineering is
supposed to have lower qualification of diploma, cannot be
excluded from the participation in the selection of Junior Engineer,
as there is nothing in the Rule or in the advertisement prescribes
the exclusion clause or confining to those who are holding diploma
qualification in Engineering will be treated to be only requisite
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
27 /43
qualification for that post. In such circumstances, there cannot be a
restriction only to those, having a qualification of diploma in
Electrical Engineer and as such, the plea that has been taken by the
Power Holding Company as well as intervenor that portal has not
prescribed any column for any other qualification indicate
exclusion of other qualification is wrong, perverse and illegal
decision has been taken by the Power Holding Company failure to
provide proper portal to the candidates having B. Tech.
qualification.
30. Dealing with the second point it has to be understood
mechanism of statutory provision while enacting an Act the
legislature makes provision for framing rule and regulation through
subordinate legislation to carry out the aim and object of
provisions of an Act, and efficiently carry out the same
authorizing the appropriate Government or prescribes authority to
frame the Rule. The exercise of power in framing Rule is an Act
of subordinate legislation by delegation of power, strictly to be
adhered, confining the power to frame Rule to that authority who
has been prescribed or authorized. The power of framing Rule
cannot be sub delegated to another authority unless it is mentioned
with specification, in such circumstances, any authority other than
the prescribed authority under the Act will not be treated to have
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
28 /43
been authorized to frame the rule or regulation, on the
principle, a delegated power cannot further be delegated unless
authorised. This principle can be imported from Latin Maxim
"delegata potestas non potest delagari" (Lat) (2 Inst.579)
Advanced Law Laxicon, by P. Ramnath Aiyar. A delegated
authority cannot be redelecated.
31. A delegated power cannot be delegated. Delegation by an
agent, that his entrusting to another person by an agent of exercise
of a power or duty entrusted to him by his principal, is in general
prohibited, under the maxim delegatus non potest delegare,
without the authority of a principal or authority derived from
statute.
32. This principle has been considered by Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in the case of Berium Chemicals Ltd. and another Vs.
Company Law Board and others, reported in AIR 1967 SC 295.
The Court has held that if the statute direct that certain acts shall be
done in a specified manner or by certain persons, their
performance in any other manner than that specified or by any
other person than one of those named is impliedly prohibited. A
discretion interested by Parliament to an administrative organ must
be exercised by that organ itself. If a statute entrusts an
administrative function involving the exercise of a discretion to a
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
29 /43
Board consisting of two or more persons it is to be presumed that
each member of the Board should exercise his individual judgment
on the matter and all the members of the Board should act together
and arrive to a decision and reiterated as aforesaid. The Court has
further held that maxim "delegatus non potest delegare" does not
embody a Rule of law it indicates a Rule of construction of a
statute or other instrument conferring an authority. A discretion
conferred by a statue or any authority is intended to be exercised
by that authority and by no other. But the intention may be
negatived by any contrary indication in the language, scope or
object of the statue. The construction that would best achieve the
purpose and object of the statue should be adopted. It will be
relevant to quote paragraph no. 34 to 37 of the aforesaid
judgment:-
"34. Bachawat, J. The order dated May 19, 1965 was
passed by the Chairman of the Company Law Board
Mr. Setalvad submitted that only the Board could pass
an order under s. 237, the Central Government could
delegate its function under s. 237 to the Board but it
had no power to authorise the Chairman to sub-
delegate this function to himself and consequently, the
Company Law Board (Procedure) Rules, 1964 made by
the Central Government on February 1, 1964 and the
Chairman's order of distribution of business dated
February 6, 1964 delegating the function of the Board
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
30 /43
under s. 237 to the Chairman are ultra vires the
Companies Act and the impugned order is invalid. The
learned Attorney-General disputed these submissions.
34A. As a general rule, whatever a person has power
to do himself, he may do by means of an agent. This
broad rule is limited by the operation of the principle
that a delegated authority cannot be redelegate,
delegates non protest delegate. The naming of I
delegate to, do an act involving a discretion indicates
that the delegate was selected because of his peculiar
skill and the confidence reposed in him, and there is a
presumption that he is required to do the act himself
and cannot redelegate his authority. As a general rule,
"if the, statute directs that certain acts shall be done in
a specified manner or by certain persons, their
performance in any other manner than that specified or
by any other person than one of those name is
impliedly prohibited." See Crawford on statutory
Construction, 1940 Edn., art. 195, p. 335:- Normally, a
discretion entrusted by Parliament to an administrative
organ must be exercised by that organ itself. If a
statute entrusts an administrative function involving
the exercise of a discretion to a Board consisting of
two or more persons it is to be presumed that each
member of the Board should exercise his individual
judgment on the matter and all, the members of the
Board should act together and arrive at a joint
decision. Prima facie, the Board must act as a whole
and cannot delegate its function to one of its members.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
31 /43
35. The learned Attorney-General submitted that a
distribution of business among the members of the
Company Law Board is not a delegation of its
authority, and the maxim has no application in such a
case. I cannot accept this submission. In Cook v.
Ward(1887) 2 CPD 255,, the Court held that where a
drainage board constituted by an Act of Parliament
was authorised by it to delegate its powers to a
committee, the powers so delegated to the committee
must be exercised by them acting in concert and it was
not competent to them to apportion those powers
amongst themselves and one of them acting, alone,
pursuant to such apportionment, could not justify his
acts under the statute. Lord Coleridge, C. J. said at p.
262:- "It was not competent to them to delegate
powers, which required the united action of the three,
to be exercised according to the unaided judgment of
one of them." Again, in Vine v. National Dock Labour
Board(1957) AC 488, the House of Lords, held that a
local board set up, under the scheme embodied in the
schedule to the Dock Workers (Regulation of
Employment) Order, 1947 had no power to assign its
disciplinary function under cls. 15(4) and 16(2) of the
scheme to a committee and the purported dismissal of
a worker by the committee was a nullity. In my opinion,
the distribution of the business of the Board among its
members is a delegation of its authority.
36. But the maxim "delegatus non potest delegare"
must not be pushed too far. The maxim does not
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
32 /43
embody a rule of law. It indicates a rule of
construction of a statute or other instrument conferring
an authority. Prima facie, a discretion conferred by a
statute, on any authority is intended to be exercised by
that authority, and by no other. But the intention may
be negatived by any contrary indications in the
language, scope or object of the statute. The
construction that would best achieve the purpose and
object of the statute should be adopted.
37. Under ss. 10E(1) and 637(1)(a), the Central
Government has power to constitute a Company Law
Board and to delegate its functions to the Board. The
Board can consist of such number of persons not
exceeding five as the Government thinks fit. One of the
members of the Board has to be appointed a Chairman
and this necessarily implies that the Board shall
consist of at least two members. As a matter of fact, the
Government constituted a Board consisting of two
members and appointed one of them as Chairman. To
this Board the Government delegated its function
under s. 237. Section 637 shows that the function under
s. 237 can be delegated to the Board and to no other
authority. The function under s. 237(b) involves the
exercise of a discretion. Prima facie, all the members
of the Board acting together were required to
discharge this function and they could not delegate
their duty to the Chairman. However, under ss. 10E(5)
and 642(1), the Central Government may frame rules
regulating the procedure of the Board and generally to
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
33 /43
carry out the purposes of the Act. In the context of s.
10E, I am inclined to construe this rule- making power
liberally The Central Government has power to
constitute the Company Law Board, to delegate its
functions to the Board and to control the Board in the
exercise of its delegated functions. In this background,
by conferring on the Central Government the
additional power of framing rules regulating the
procedure of the Board and generally to carry out the
purposes of s. 10E, the Parliament must have intended
that the internal Organisation of the Board and the
mode and manner of transacting its business should be
regulated entirely by rules framed by the Government.
The Government had, therefore, power to frame the
Company Law Board (Procedure) Rules, 1964
authorising the Chairman to distribute the business of
the Board. In the exercise of the power conferred by
this rule, the Chairman assigned the business under s.
237 to himself. The Chairman alone could, therefore,
pass the impugned order. Act No. 31 of 1965 has now
inserted sub-s. (4A) in s. 10E authorising the Board to
delegate its powers and functions to its Chairman or
other members or principal officer. The power under
sub-s. (4A) may be exercised by the Board
independently of any rules framed by the Central
Government. We find, however, that the Central
Government had under ss. 10E(5) and 642(1) ample
power to frame rules authorising the Chairman to
distribute the business of the Board. The wide ambit of
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
34 /43
this rulemaking power is not cut down by the
subsequent insertion of sub-s. (4A) in s. 10E".
33. In the case of A.K. Roy and another v. State of Punjab
and others, reported in AIR 1986 SC 2160 the Court says that if
the requirements of a statute which prescribe the manner in which
something is to be done are expressed in negative language, that is
to say, if the statute enacts that it shall be done in such a manner
and in no other manner, it has been laid down that those
requirements are in all cases absolute, and that neglect to attend to
them will invalidate the whole proceedings. The power is given to
do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that
way or not at all. Other modes of performance are necessarily
forbidden. The intention of the Legislature in enacting S. 20(1) was
to confer a power on the authorities specified therein which power
had to be exercised in the manner provided and not otherwise. It
will be relevant to quote paragraph nos. 10 to 12 of the aforesaid
judgment:
"10. A careful analysis of the language of s. 20(l)
of the Act clearly shows that it inhibits institution of
prosecutions for an offence under the Act except on
fulfillment of one or the other of the two conditions.
Either the prosecutions must be instituted by the
Central Government or the State Government or a
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
35 /43
person authorised in that behalf by the Central
Government or the State Government, or the
prosecutions should be instituted with the written
consent of any of the four specified categories of
authorities or persons. If either of these two conditions
is satisfied, there would be sufficient authority for the
institution of such a prosecution for an offence under
the Act. The provision contained in s. 20(1) of the Act
does not contemplate the institution of a prosecution by
any person other than those designated. The terms of s.
20 (1) do not envisage further delegation of powers by
the person authorized, except that such prosecution
may be instituted with the written consent of the
Central Government or the State Government or the
person authorized. The use of the negative words in s.
20(1) "No prosecution for an offence under this Act..
shall be instituted except by or with the written consent
of" plainly make the requirements of the section
imperative. That conclusion of ours must necessarily
follow from the well known rule of construction of
inference to be drawn from the negative language used
in a statute stated by Craies on Statute Law, 6th edn.,
p. 263 in his own terse language:
"If the requirements of a statute which
prescribe the manner in which something is to be
done are expressed in negative language, that is to
say, if the statute enacts that it shall be done in such
a manner and in no other manner, it has been laid
down that those requirements are in all cases
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
36 /43
absolute, and that neglect to attend to them will
invalidate the whole proceeding."
Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a
certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not
at all. Other modes of performance are necessarily
forbidden. The intention of the Legislature in enacting
s. 20(1) was to confer a power on the authorities
specified therein which power had to be exercised in
the manner provided and not otherwise.
11. The first part of s. 20(1) of the Act lays down the
manner of launching prosecutions for an offence under
the Act, not being an offence under s. 14 or s. 14A. The
second part provides for delegation of powers by the
Central Government or the State Government. It
enables that prosecutions for an offence under the Act
can also be instituted with the written consent of the
Central Government or the State Government or by a
person authorized in that behalf, by a general or
special order issued by the Central Government or the
State Government. The use of the words 'in this behalf'
in s. 20(1) of the Act shows that the delegation of such
power by the Central Government or the State
Government by general or special order must be for a
specific purpose, to authorize a designated person to
institute such prosecutions on their behalf. The terms
of s. 20( 1) of the Act do not postulate further
delegation by the person so authorized; he can only
give his consent in writing when he is satisfied that a
prima facie case exists in the facts of a particular case
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
37 /43
and records his reasons for the launching of such
prosecution in the public interest.
12. In the case of statutory powers the important
question is whether on a true construction of the Act, it
is intended that a power conferred upon A may be
exercised on A's authority by B. The maxim delegatus
non potest delegare merely indicates that this is not
normally allowable but the Legislature can always
provide for sub-delegation of powers. The provision
contained in ss. 24(2) (e) enables the State Government
to frame a rule for delegation of powers and functions
under the Act but it clearly does not envisage any sub-
delegation. That apart, a rule framed under s. 24(2) (e)
can only provide for delegation of minor
administrative functions e.g. appointment of Food
Inspectors, Food (Health) Authority etc. In the case of
important executive functions like the one contained in
s. 20(1) of the Act to authorize launching of
prosecutions for an offence under the Act which is in
the nature of a safeguard, the Courts may be disposed
to construe general powers of delegation restrictively.
Keeping in view the language of s. 20(1) and 24(2) (e)
of the Act, r. 3 of the Punjab Rules can be treated to be
a general order issued by the State Government to
authorise the Food (Health) Authority i.e. the Director
of Health Services to institute prosecutions for an
offence under the Act. Unfortunately, the draftsmen of
r. 3 more or less employed the language of s. 20(1) of
the Act. If r. 3 were to be literally interpreted, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
38 /43
words "to authorize the launching of prosecutions"
may lead to the consequence that the Food (Health)
Authority who had been delegated the power of the
State Government under s. 20(1) of the Act could, in
his turn, sub-delegate his powers to the Food
Inspector. Such a consequence is not envisaged by s.
20(1) of the Act. It is well-settled that rules framed
pursuant to a power conferred by a statute cannot
proceed or go against the specific provisions of the
statute. It must therefore follow as a logical
consequence that r. 3 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration (Punjab) Rules, 1958 must be read
subject to the provisions contained in s. 20(1) of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and cannot
be construed to authorize sub-delegation of powers by
the Food (Health) Authority, Punjab to the Food
Inspector, Faridkot. If so construed, as it must, it
would mean that the Food (Health) Authority was the
person authorised by the State Government to initiate
prosecutions. It was also permissible for the Food
(Health) Authority being the person authorized under
s. 20(1) of the Act to give his written consent for the
institution of such prosecutions by the Food Inspector,
Faridkot as laid down by this Court in State of Bombay
v. Parshottam Kanaiyalal, [1961] 1 SCR 458 and The
Corporation of Calcutta v. Md. Omer Ali & Anr.,
[1976] 4 SCC 527.
34. So from the aforesaid judgments it is very much clear
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
39 /43
that if the legislature does not provide or prescribe a power of sub
delegation, the authority to whom the power has been delegated, he
cannot sub delegate its power. In such view of the matter, this
Court has to examine whether the amendment made by the
Chairman-cum-Managing Director will have legal force in the eye
of law. As having stated that this power has been exercised in view
of the notification no.109 dated 16.9.1992 which has prescribed
that the power has been conferred on the Chairman of Board to
take suitable action as has been deemed fit in the interest of the
Board/ public interest in pursuance of Board Resolution No. 6581
dated 26.8.1992. It will be relevant to quote the notification itself
which has been issued in exercise of power under Section 79K of
the Electricity Supply Act, 1948:
"(a) That the matter is of urgent nature and in Board
is interest. Further, that the meeting of the Board is not
likely to be held in near future.
(b) Such decision should be placed in the immediate
next meeting of the Board.
35. For resolving this issue, it has to be examined as to
whether Chairman has power and jurisdiction to amend the
requisite qualification prescribed by the Board of Director earlier,
prescribing of qualification of B.E./B.Tech for participation in
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
40 /43
requirement of Junior Engineer and for that it has to be examined
the provision of Clause 79 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948,
which provides as follows:
"79. Power to make regulations.- 1 [The Board may
by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations] not
inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder to
provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-
(a) the administration of the funds and other property of
the Board, and the maintenance of its accounts;
(b) the summoning and holding of meetings of the Board,
the times and places at which such meetings shall be
held, the conduct of business thereat and the number of
members necessary to constitute a quorum;
(c) the duties of 2 [officers and other employees] of the
Board, and their salaries, allowance and other
conditions of service;
(d) all matters necessary or expedient for regulating the
operations of the Board under section 20;
(e) the making of advances to licensees by the Board
under section 23 and the manner of repayment of such
advances;
(f) the making of contributions by the Board under
section 24;
(g) the procedure to be followed by the Board in inviting,
considering and accepting tenders;
(h) principles governing the fixing of Grid Tariffs;
(i) principles governing the making of arrangements with
licensees under section 47;
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
41 /43
(j) principles governing the supply of electricity by the
Board to persons other than licensees under section 49;
3[(jj) expending sum not included in statement submitted
under sub-section (1) of sub-section (5) of the section 61,
under sub-section (2) of the section 62;]
(k) any other matter arising out of the Board's functions
under this Act for which it is necessary or expedient to
make regulations: Provided that regulations under
clauses (a) 4[,(d) and (jj)] shall be made only with the
previous approval of the State Government and
regulations under clauses (h) and (i) shall be made with
the concurrence of the Authority".
36. It has been submitted that power has been exercised under
Clause 79K of the Act, which authorize that any matter arising out
of Board function under the Act for which it is necessary or
expedient to make regulation provided that regulation under Clause
4[,(d) and (jj)] shall be made only with the previous approval of
the State Government and regulations under clauses (h) and (i)
shall be made with the concurrence of the Authority". So, on
forensic examination of Clause 79K of the Act which restrictly
prescribes for framing of regulation for Clause (a), 4(d) and 4(jj)
and Clause (h) and (i). So, it does not deal with the fixation of
qualification for recruitment of Junior Engineer, whereas, Clause
79(c) of the Act, itself prescribes the duties of officers and other
Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018
42 /43
employees of the Board and their salary allowances and other
condition of service, so this is a proper clause for prescribing the
manner of selection of employee of the Board is inclusive of
fixation of qualification. So far Clause (h) of the Act is for fixation
of grid tariffs, does not anyway related to fixation of qualification.
So it is very much clear that the power can not be exercised for
fixation of qualification taking aid of the notification dated
16.09.1992. It is for other purposes than the fixation of qualification of recruitment of different class of employee. It is very much clear from the provision of Rule 79, it is the Board alone can make amendment of qualification under Clause 79 (c)of the Act, does not extend or delegate its power to other authority and it is also very much clear that the Rule for recruitment was framed by the Board, subsequently the Chairman before issuance of advertisement has modified the qualification which has been done without authority of law, when statutory provisions are very much clear, only the Board has been authorized to frame rule would have jurisdiction not to any other authority.
37. So this Court is of the view, it is only the Board which could have modified the qualification prescribing or excluding of such qualification for recruitment of Junior Engineer.
38. In such view of the matter, this Court finds force in the Patna High Court CWJC No.11096 of 2018 43 /43 argument of the petitioners and the same is accepted. This Court directs to take necessary step by proper authority to create new portal for person having qualification of BE/B.Tech. degree, thereby allow them to participate in recruitment process of selection of Junior Engineer.
39. Accordingly these writ petitions are allowed.
(Shivaji Pandey, J)
Vinay/Sunny
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 26.7.2018
Uploading Date 5.9.2018
Transmission NA
Date