9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the quota system for promotion in the Punjab State Electricity Board. 2. Implementation of the Supreme Court judgment in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case. 3. Delay and laches in filing the writ petition. 4. Non-joinder of necessary parties. 5. Equitable relief and financial burden on the Board. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Quota System for Promotion: The Punjab State Electricity Board (Board) had introduced a quota system for promotions between diploma-holders and non-diploma-holders, which was challenged as being arbitrary and discriminatory. The Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case held that the fixation of a quota for promotion between diploma-holders and non-diploma-holders Linemen, who were integrated into a common cadre, was wholly arbitrary and irrational, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The eligibility criteria for promotion were based on an office order dated October 22, 1968, which prescribed different conditions for diploma-holders and non-diploma-holders. The Supreme Court's judgment emphasized that promotions should be based on seniority-cum-merit and the relevant date for consideration for promotion should be the date when the promotional post fell vacant. 2. Implementation of the Supreme Court Judgment: The writ petitioner, Ashok Kumar Sehgal, sought the implementation of the Supreme Court's judgment in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case retroactively for himself and others similarly situated. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, directing the Board to implement the Supreme Court's judgment not only for the petitioner but also for others similarly situated. However, the Division Bench held that the writ petitioners could only seek the application of the law declared by the Supreme Court and not the relief by way of implementation thereof. The judgment emphasized that the law declared in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case is applicable to all, but the implementation of the judgment is meant for the parties involved in that case. 3. Delay and Laches in Filing the Writ Petition: The writ petitioner approached the Court in 1987, challenging promotions made as early as 1977. The Division Bench noted that the petitioner had not provided any explanation for the delay of 10 years in approaching the Court. The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that delay and laches can be a ground for denying relief. The Court held that the unexplained delay of 10 years was significant and should have led to the dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Non-joinder of Necessary Parties: The writ petitioner had not impleaded the necessary parties, particularly those who were promoted in violation of his claimed seniority. The Division Bench held that the writ petition was incompetent for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Court emphasized that every affected person has a right to be heard, and the petitioner had a duty to implead the affected parties as respondents. 5. Equitable Relief and Financial Burden on the Board: The Division Bench considered the financial burden on the Board and the potential chaos that could result from rescheduling promotions retrospectively. The Court noted that granting relief to the writ petitioners would impose an onerous burden on the Board, ultimately affecting the public and electricity consumers. The Court held that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution involves a lot of discretion, and in this case, the relief sought was inequitable. Conclusion: The Division Bench allowed the Letters Patent Appeal No. 402 of 1988, setting aside the judgment and order of the learned single Judge in C.W.P. No. 1903 of 1987. The writ petition was dismissed for reasons including lack of particulars, non-joinder of necessary parties, delay and laches, and the inequitable nature of the relief sought. The Court also dismissed other related writ petitions and appeals for similar reasons. The decision emphasized the importance of timely filing, proper impleading of affected parties, and the equitable considerations in granting relief.
|
