9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of disposal in the following categories : (1) LPA NO. 402 of 1988 itself. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereafter referred to as the Board) against the judgment and order passed in C.W.P, No. 1903 of 1987 decided on January 25, 1988. (2) Matters directly connected with LPA No.402 of 1988. These are LPA Nos. 403 to 411 of 1988 and LPA No. 309 of 1988 which have been preferred by the Board against the common judgment and order as passed in C.W.P. Nos. 497, 1440, 1716, 1806, 1812, 1942, 2476, 2609 and 3145 of 1987, which were allowed along with C.W.P. No. 1903 of 1987. L.P.A. No. 309 of 1988 has been preferred by a loosing party respondent in C.W.P. No. 1903 of 1987. L.P.A. No. 547 of 1988 is also against the decision in C.W.P. No. 1903 of 1987 and has been preferred by the Punjab State Electricity Board Diploma-Holders Association after obtaining leave of the Court, since it was claimed that neither the Association-Appellant nor majority of its diploma-holders members had been impleaded as respondents in the said writ petition. (3) Matters identical with L.P.A. No. 402 of 1988. C.W.P. No. 1637 of 1979 was allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harma's case (supra) retroactively, not only in his case but also in cases of persons similarly situated irrespective of the fact whether such employees had approached the Court or not. 5. The petitioner additionally projected that the conditions of service of the petitioner were to begin with governed by the Punjab Public Works Department (Electricity Branch) Provincial Service Class-III (Subordinate Posts) Rules, 1952, made by the Governor of Punjab in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Later, when the Punjab State Electricity Board was established under Section 3 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the same set of rules continued to govern the conditions of service of the petitioners even after coming into existence of the Board. According to the aforesaid service rules, promotions from the post of Lineman to the post of Line Superintendent (now designated as Junior Engineer-II) suggestedly are to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit (though there is nothing specific in that regard in the Rules) and the only qualification for being a Lineman prescribed by the rules is that of matric. On the basis of these rules, persons w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the Linemen are found suitable for promotion, then promotion be given to them retrospectively with effect from the date their juniors were promoted and finally to grant them the consequential relief of arrears of salary and fixation of pay etc. on the said basis. 7. The aggrieved Board on preferring L.P. A. No. 402 of 1988 persuaded the Motion Bench comprising of S. S. Kang and S. D. Bajaj, JJ. on April 22, 1988, in granting stay of the operation of the impugned judgment in the meanwhile. The said order was passed in the presence of the parties counsel. The same order was repeated in the connected LPAs. 8. A dramatic development took place in the meantime which is worthy of immediate notice. 9. Kuldip Singh and 13 others linemen of the Board filed C.W.P. No. 8167 of 1987 claiming identical relief on the strength of Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case 1986 Lab IC 2076 (SC) (supra). On February 10, 1988, in the presence of the counsel for the parties, the Motion Bench comprising of G.C. Mital and S. D. Bajaj, JJ. allowed the writ petition by passing the following order : "After considering the matter, we are of the view that the facts of this case are identical with the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the view points of the Diploma-holders and non-Diploma-holders, the decision of the Supreme Court in MANU/SC/0481/1986 : AIR 1987 SC 367 : 1986 Lab IC 2076 was followed, because the inter se dispute between these groups was decided by the Supreme Court, and this Court was merely to implement it, which was so ordered by M. R. Agnihotri, J. Since the decision of the Supreme Court was followed by M. R. Agnihotri, J. and facts before us being the same, we followed that decision and gave relief to the non-Diploma-holders linemen. Against the decision of M. R. Agnihotri, J. Punjab State Electricity Board had got its L.P.A. admitted. The Diploma-holders association filed separate L.P.A. with leave to file and it was granted leave and the L.P.A. has been admitted. Therefore, the controversy between the Diploma-holders and non-Diploma-holders is in L. P.A., which is now referred to Full Bench, and whatever decision is rendered therein, would be binding on the Diploma-holders and non-Diploma-holders. Under the circumstances of the case, no case for review is made out. The application along with the application for condonation of delay are dismissed. Sd/-G. C. Mital Sd/-S. D. Bajaj, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Punjab State Electricity Board (1980) 3 SLR 75 : 1980 Lab IC 943 (Punj & Har). The Bench took the view that if the Board thought it fit as a matter of policy taking into consideration all factors that non-diploma-holder Line Superintendents were fit enough to perform the duties of Junior Engineers after promotion, there was absolutely no warrant or justification to debar them from competing with their counterparts having diploma as their qualification on the basis of equality and parity. 15. having suffered defeat in Sukhdev Raj Sharma's case (supra) on May 5, 1980, the Board had to meet another litigation of the same kind but in an ordinary Civil Court. One Ravinder Kumar Sharma 1986 Lab IC 2076 (SC), on July 17, 1980, filed a suit for declaration challenging two orders dated July 12, 1977 and August 17, 1977, promoting respectively the arrayed defendants Nos. 3 to 7 from the posts of Linemen to the posts of Line Superintendents, ignoring the claim of the plaintiff who was statedly senior to the named defendants Nos. 3 to 7. He claimed that the promotion were illegal, unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary etc. The suit of Ravinder Kumar Sharma was decreed and he was d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R.S. A. No. 254 of 1983. It also sought Special Leave to Appeal against the dismissal of C.R. No. 407 of 1984. That apparently was ordered to be heard with the appeal against the main judgment. 17. Civil Appeals Nos.2006 to 2010 of 1980 (inclusive of Nos. 2007 and 2008 of 1980) were disposed by a Bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court, observing as follows : "After the hearing of the appeals had gone on for some time, it transpired that all the petitioners in writ petitions before the High Court have since been promoted as Junior Engineers. The main grievance of the petitioners was as regards the fixation of quota for promotion as Junior Engineers and that question is no longer a live issue. That is the only question involved in the appeals and the question has become purely academic. It also appears that some affected persons who were junior to the petitioners but had been promoted as Junior Engineers, had not been impleaded as party respondents in the writ petition. As such no relief could be claimed against them in so far as question of seniority was concerned. That being so, we do not think it expedient to express any opinion on the validit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpressing its doubt and difficulty as to the law applicable. The applications for directions are accordingly dismissed." 19. This completes the litigious history. Now we go over to the report in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case. We have seen from the original trial Court record in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case and as is apparent from the report also, the trial Court, lower appellate Court and the High Court proceeded on the basis that the plaintiff Ravinder Kumar Sharma was senior to defendants Nos. 3 to 7 and his claim for promotion was based just on that. Defendants Nos. 3 to 7 had not contested the suit and the only contestant was the Board. It is at the Supreme Court stage that the affected, defendants also obtained the Special Leave to Appeal against the judgments of the Courts below and with their aid the matter was highlighted in the Supreme Court. It is not difficult to discern from the facts as stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the report that Ravinder Kumar Sharma had become a Lineman from December 29, 1969 (inclusive of his one year's service as Apprentice Lineman) had become eligible to be promoted with effect from December 28, 1973 and the promotion which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of 3 to 4 years duration recruited as Lineman against the reservation of 60% fixed for recruitment of persons holding certificate of 1 1/2 years' course in the Electrical Trades of Electrician/Line Man/Wire Man from recognised Industrial Training Institutes have worked as Line Man for 3 years continuously and immediately before promotion. On promotion as Line Superintendent they will be given weightage of 2 years' service as compared to non-diploma-holders, at the time of fixation of their seniority and pay in accordance with the instruction contained in Board's Memo No.88774/84/BET/(33)L dated 29-12-1967. (d)(i) Matriculates Line Man having a total continuous service of 9 years as at A.L.M. and Line Man out of which they should have worked as Line Man for 4 years continuously and immediately before promotion. (ii) Non-matriculates Line Man having a total continuous service of 11 years as A.L.M. and Line Man out of which they should have worked as Line man for four years, continuously and immediately before promotion, provided they are capable of preparing estimates, writing up measurement books accurately keeping store accounts and in addition are conversant with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y have been remanded but instead was considered for promotion on admissions made by the parties right there, and he was thus held entitled to promotion with effect from the date of his juniors had been promoted. We have also taken care to see from the original record as to whether the question of eligibility and the criteria laid for the purpose ever came in to consideration in both the Courts below. It is significant to find that this aspect of the case was never projected before the Court below by either party. It appears to have been highlighted by defendants 3 to 7 and the Board in support of their appeals for the first time in the Supreme Court. The eligibility criteria embodied in Office Order dated December 2, 1968, laying down conditions for eligibility for Linemen seeking promotion to the posts of Line Superintendents, in the nature of things, was patently accepted and latently approved as valid by the Supreme Court. Had it not been so, there was no need to have the said office order figure prominently in the rendered judgment and the acquiring of eligibility of Ravinder Kumar Sharma highlighted and emphasised. The seniority list, Exh. P on the trial Court file too disclos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f law alone are declaratory for the nation. What remains has been left for the parties. The orders of the Supreme Court are enforce- able under Article 142 of the Constitution and the Code of Civil Procedure. The effective order of the Supreme Court, where-under justice was done to the parties is binding on the parties. In other words, questions as to seniority, deemed promotion etc. etc. decided in favour of Ravinder Kumar Sharma is not in the nature of a binding ratio so as to bind Courts in future to regulate the relief always on those lines. The reasoning of one decision cannot be applied in another case in the absence of similarity of situation or circumstances. It is also worthy of notice that Ravinder Kumar Sharma opted for the ordinary remedy of a suit for declaration and instituted the suit within the period of limitation. No question of neglect, delay or laches could enter in such a situation. The Supreme Court granted the relief to Ravinder Kumar Sharma 1986 Lab IC 2076 after declaring the law by means of its judgment and that judgment is not to be construed as an Act of Parliament. It is to be read in the context of the questions which arose for consideration in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of prospective or retrospective applicability, well known to Acts of Parliament and other Legislatures, does not therefore figure in it. Art. 141 of the Constitution makes the law declared by the Supreme Court binding on all Courts within the territory of India. It goes without saying that this Court is bound to apply the law laid down in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case in the instant litigation, has has been culled out by us above, yet not always obliged to grant the asked for reliefs to the parties just because, Ravinder Kumar Sharma got what he asked for from the Supreme Court. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, which has been invoked in the instant litigation, is regulated differently and a lot of discretion enters in such field of justicing. 23. Now with regard to the objection taken as bar to the hearing of these matters in view of the so-called approval given to Ashok Kumar Sehgal's case by the Division Bench in Kuldip Singh's case and then Kuldip Singh's case having been given the seal of approval by the Supreme Court, we have on point a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Rup Diamonds v. Union of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uade us to decline to interfere." 24. On the basis of emphasised words in the aforesaid-quotation, it can safely be held that the orders dated February 10, 1988, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Kuldip Singh's case cannot, on the basis of the mere rejection of the Special Leave Petition against the said orders, by the Board, be construed as seal of approval as if a decision of the Supreme Court so as to oust our jurisdiction in hearing these matters. Article 136(1) of the Constitution provides that notwithstanding anything in Chapter IV, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any Court or tribunal in the territory of India. If the Supreme Court, in its discretion, refuses to grant Special Leave to Appeal, then there is no appeal. The doctrine of merger or fusing the judgment of the lower Court in that of the -appellate Court does not apply to such a situation. Thus, in our view, we can proceed with these matters despite the Special Leave Petition in Kuldip Singh's case having been dismissed. Such view of ours is further str ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... review application stands dismissed, a qualified review, on the happening of the contemplated event, has been allowed by the Bench. 26. For the foregoing reasoning, we over-rule the objection challenging our power to deal with these matters and proceed further. 27. The Board in his return contested the case as set up by Ashok Kumar Sehgal. The defence of the Board, inter alia, was that since the quota rule had been struck down by the Supreme Court, it had stopped applying it after October 22, 1986, and had issued an order to that effect on Nov., 14, 1986. It pleaded however, that between May 1970, when the quota rule was introduced and Nov. 14, 1986, when the quota rule was formally abolished, about 900 persons were promoted on the basis of their being diploma-holders in Electrical Engineering in accordance with the said rule. The junior-most diploma-holder, who was thus promoted, was at seniority No. 5500 and the non-diploma holder, similarly promoted, was at Sr. No. 1012-A. These facts were highlighted to suggest that since there was a gap of about 4500 affected persons in that cadre, it was physically impossible to reschedule promotions already made on the basis of the quota ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the senior person, they will take rank inter se according to their relative seniority in the class from which they were promoted and the junior person thus promoted shall not be confirmed from a date earlier than the date of confirmation of his senior except on the score of inefficiency of the latter. The proviso further says that if a member is appointed to a higher class later than a person who was junior to him in the lower class for reasons which the appointing authority may certify in writing to be connected with the public interest the person so appointed shall be given the same seniority in the higher class vis-a-vis such junior as he held in the lower class. The Exception and the proviso govern specific fields qualifiedly introducing the element of merit into seniority rule for the purposes of promotion. 30. A valid quota rule was already existing prior to May 14, 1970, in the cadres of Linesman and Line Superintendents, 67 per cent quota was kept for direct recruitment from the open market and 33, per cent was kept as promotional quota. By Office order dated May 14, 1970, the Board for the first time encroached upon the quota for direct recruits. It reduced the quota of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em. The rub, however, was the existence of the common seniority list, same cadre, same assignment of duties and the same pay. And yet there was distinction in promotion to the post of Line Superintendent on the basis of educational qualifications, especially when the promotion again was to a post in a common cadre. If a promotional post in the quota of diploma-holders was available, it would go to a diploma-holder and if one was available in the quota of non-diploma holder, it would go to a non-diploma-holder. Then the question arose, why should there be two gates of entry on the basis just of educational qualifications when in the climbing of stairs one is supposed to leave the same common first floor to go to the same common second floor. The quota rule, in such circumstances, was struck down in various cases starting from Mohd. Shujatali's case MANU/SC/0371/1974 : 1974 Lab IC 1103 (SC) (supra) till today, some of which we will advert to and not all cited. But the point which is worth emphasis here is that neither the diploma-holders were all gainers nor the non-diploma holders all losers. Despite the differentiation created they all remained and admixture of losers and gaine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of eligibility qualification for promotion, was justified on the basis that one enjoyned greater experience and that the distinction based on length of service was directly related to the object of such classification. In Roop Chand Adlakha. v. Delhi Development Authority AIR 1989 SC 30 : MANU/SC/0413/1988 : 1989 Lab IC 1268, rules prescribing different conditions of eligibility for diploma-holders and graduates for promotion from the, cadre of Junior Engineers to that of Assistant Engineers and from the cadre of Assistant Engineers to that of Executive Engineers in the Public Works Department of the Delhi Development Authority were held not violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The State was held not precluded from conferring eligibility on diploma-holders conditioning it by other requirements which included certain quantum of service, experience, consistent with the requirements of promotional posts and in the interest of efficiency of the service. And then there is Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case 1986 Lab IC 2076 (SC) (supra), which we have analysed in detail earlier, where by means of an office order different conditions of eligibility prescribed for diploma-holder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aprice. Designedly the case of promotion of the first eligible can deliberately be kept delayed with oblique motives so as to let suitable rivals come in and in this manner his acquired eligibility can be frustrated by someone senior acquiring eligibility far far late. Since different conditions of eligibility for promotion from Linesmen to Line Superintendent have been prescribed by the Board on the differences based on the educational qualification-cum-service experience, respectively for non-diploma holders and diploma holders, having regard to the requirements of promotional posts and in the interests of efficiency of service, the eligibility criteria is the first dominant factor and thereafter comes the principle of seniority governing the fate when two equal eligible stake claim to the promotional post. In that situation, the senior person would get the promotional post on both acquiring eligibility on the same date, even though the promotional post falls vacant later. Therefore, we wish to emphasise here that seniority alone is not the basis for promotion from the post of Linesman to the post of Line Superintendent, as is the common belief of the writ petitioners in the inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of its making. Reliance was placed by him on Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay MANU/SC/0020/1951 : 1951 SCR 228 : (AIR 1951 SC 128) to suggest that when the law has been declared void, relief has to be given in favour of the person affected. This argument presupposes that we have to go back to discover what was the law relating to promotion prevalent at the time prior to May 14, 1970, wherefrom and thereafter was the quota rule gradually introduced. The promotional rule prior to May 14, 1970 was that in a cadre of 100 persons, 67 of posts were meant for direct recruits and the remaining 33 posts were meant for promotees. So all the Linesmen on the striking off of the quota rule would have to pass through the narrow 33 per cent door to climb to the second storey. This is the inevitable effect because the law declared by the Supreme Court is that the quota rule is void, that is to say, the change effected was bad and thus the status quo ante be reverted. This would be an extremely unfortunate situation for the parties to the litigation if we date back the application by narrowing down the promotee quota to 33 per cent, as existing prior to May 14, 1970. When asked to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 32 is itself a guaranteed right- So it is, but it does not follow from this that it was the intention of the Constitution-makers that this Court should discard all principles and grant relief in petitions filed after inordinate delay. We are not anxious to throw out petitions on this ground, but we must administer justice in accordance with law and principles of equity, justice and good conscience. It would be unjust to deprive the respondents of the rights which have accrued to them. Each person ought to be entitled to sit back and consider that his appointment and promotion effected a long time ago would not be set aside after the lapse of a number of years. It was on this ground that this Court in Jaisinghani's case observed that the order in that case would not affect Class-II officers who have been appointed permanently as Assistant Commissioners. In that case, the Court was only considering the challenge to appointments made during the periods of 1945 to 1950. If there was adequate reason in that case to leave out Class-II Officers, who had been appointed permanently Assistant Commissioners, there is much more reason in this case that the officers who are now permanent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see no reason to hold that different test ought to be applied when a party comes to this Court under Art. 32 from one applicable to applications under Art. 226. There is a public policy behind all statutes of limitation and according to Halsbury's Law of England (Third Edition, Volume 24, Art. 330 at page 11 :-- "The Courts have expressed at least three different reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitation, namely (1) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them, (2) that defendant might have lost the evidence to disprove a stale demand and (3) that persons with good causes of action should pursue them with reasonable diligence." 40. Fourth in line is Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India 1970 SLR 339 : MANU/SC/0506/1969 : 1970 Lab IC 402, wherein the Constitution Bench observed as follows (at p. 410 of Lab IC) : "But in so far as the attack is based on the 1952 Seniority Rules, it must fail on another ground. The ground being that this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution has been brought about fifteen years after the 1952 Rules were promulgated and effect given to them in the Seniority List prepared on Aug., 1, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner's petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court." The conduct of the petitioner in that case was also commented upon by the Court to say that in effect he wants to unscramble a scrambled egg. 43. Mr, Sibal then relied upon a single Bench decision of (this Court in Ch. Amar Singh v. State of Haryana 1982) 2 SLR 337 : 1982 Lab IC 105, in which all the case law on the subject was considered and the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 44. On the other hand, Mr. J.L. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. The State of Maharashtra (1974) 1 S LR 470 : MANU/SC/0391/1973 : 1974 Lab IC 165, in which the Supreme Court, fully aware of the trend setting decisions afore-quoted, went on to interfere despite delay. But there the Court justified its action by observing as follows (at p. 172 of Lab IC) : "......Here, as admitted by the State Government in paragraph 55 of the affidavit in reply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inviolable rule that whenever there is delay the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition. Each must depend on its own facts." Even if it is a rule of practice, it is reflective of practical wisdom not to unsettle settled things which took place in the distant past. 45. A three-Member Bench of the Supreme Court in Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise Central Revenue, MANU/SC/0036/1974 : AIR 1975 SC 538 : (1975 Lab IC 363), taking stock of the earlier case law, observed as follows (at p. 372 of Lab IC) : ".......But, a number of promotions having taken place between 1959 and the filing of Amrit Lal Berry's petition in 1971, those who were so promoted and had been satisfactorily discharging for considerable periods before the filing of the petition, their duties in a higher grade would acquire new claims and qualifications, by lapse of time and due discharge of their new functions so that they could not, unless relief had been sought speedily against their allegedly illegal confirmations and promotions be equitably equated with the petitioner. The inequality in the equitable balance brought into being a petitioner's own laches and acquie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn in the implementation of the scheme. In these circumstances, the Court observed that this would be discriminatory as those workmen came from the lowest grade of Railway service and they could ill afford to rush to the Court. It was thus observed that those who could not come to the Court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in Court. As is obvious, this is hardly a case of delay and laches. Only the reasonableness of the scheme was being considered and the labourers who had gone to the court and others who had not, were put at par by modifying the scheme Inter Pal Yadav's case (supra) is hardly an answer to the plea of delay and laches. 48. Mr. J. L. Gupta, learned counsel for Ashok Kumar Sehgal, however, then relied upon G.P, Doyal v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P. (1984) 2 S LR 555 : 1984 Lab IC 1304, again a decision of two Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court, where the Court did not refuse relief on ground of delay and, laches. That was a case in which the impugned seniority list had not been finalised and the existence of tentative seniority list, which was under challenge, was ordered to be altered despite the then petitioner approaching t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1983) 2 S LR 786, in which D.S. Tewatia, J. (as the Ex: Chief Justice then was) took the view that declaratory judgments of the Court dealing with the legality of the statutes, rules and Governmental policies are binding not only on persons who are party thereto but on others also who may be incidentally affected by such a declaration. It was also held in that case that it is only a party which was a necessary party before the Court and had not been impleaded as such, that may feel free to legally challenge the binding nature of a given judgment of the Court if that judgment adversely affects its rights and interests. Declaratory judgments of the Supreme Court with regard to law are of course binding on all parties or no parties, as has been indicated by us earlier. But a necessary party who was not so impleaded may legally challenge the effect or nature of the judgment if it adversely affects its rights and interests. This judgment is hardly a precedent for the view that if there is a Supreme Court judgment in favour of the writ petitioner, he must ipso facto get relief therein without impleading proper parties, for statedly they would be bound by the law declared by the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esman and date of promotion to JE-11. This is an extremely unsatisfactory way to seek march over another. Significantly, he only impleaded the Board and its Chief Engineer as the only two respondents. Later some private parties of their own got impleaded as respondents but the affected Ramesh Kumar is not amongst them. He simply cannot be allowed to ask to be treated as promoted from the date his junior was promoted because in one post there can at one time be one incumbent and the something follows on such retrospective promotion as there is a consequential displacement. Thus in the absence of proper and necessary parties. Ashok Kumar Sehgal is not entitled to any relief. 53. Even the law in that regard is well settled. In Udit Narain Singh Malpharia v. Addl. Member Board of Revenue Bihar MANU/SC/0045/1962 : AIR 1963 SC 786 a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that in a writ of certiorari not only the tribunal or authority whose order is sought to be quashed but also parties in whose favour the said order is issued are necessary parties. It was further observed that the petition was incompetent if necessary parties who were there before the tribunal or authority, were n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y prospectively so that the law settled and applied earlier thereto is not disturbed so as to keep finalised the judgments earlier rendered. Here in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case (1986 Lab IC 2076) (SC) no such situation arose. There was no view to the contrary given earlier by the Court which was overruled. The rule was not even conditioned to restrict on prospective application. To be further fair to the learned counsel for the parties, it must also be acknowledged here that many judicial precedents were cited by both sides in support of their respective views on all aspects, but we have taken note of only those as find mention in this judgment and have not liked to further burden it more with judicial precedent which were by and large repetitive of the principles noticed earlier. 56. Lastly, Mr. Sibal, learned counsel for the Board, submitted that in equity also it is not fair to ask the Board at this stage to rescheduled the promotions retrospectively as that would lead to complete chaos and would put the Board to such a large financial burden that it would ultimately have to be met by the innocent tariff-payer i.e. the consumer of electricity. He submitted that pre-dated p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , delay and laches of the petitioners both are relevant to deny the relief to the writ petitioners. 57. Thus, to conclude, the judgment and. order of the learned single Judge in C.W.P. No. 1903 of 1987 in Ashok Kumar Sehgal's case is set aside, for the reasons : (a) He cannot succeed only on the ground that be was senior to his juniors who were promoted as Line Superintendents; (b) He cannot succeed in his petition because it suffers from lack of particulars and vagueness, having not stated when did he acquire eligibility for promotion, when did his juniors acquire eligibility for promotion, when did the promotional post or posts fall vacant which he was deprived of and on what basis? (c) He cannot succeed for having not impleaded the parties affected thereby, if he was to be given promotion from a back date, and more particularly in the absence of Ramesh Kumar, the junior suggestedly promoted earlier to him. (c) The claim of the writ petitioner is stale and an effort to unsettle settled matters and would be iniquitous to disturb those who sit back and consider that their appointments and promotions effected a long time ago would not be upset after a lapse of a number ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 402 of 1988, the delay being of nearly six years in approaching this Court. (iii) C.W.P. No. 1817 of 1987 is dismissed, for the delay in approaching the Court is almost. 10 years. (iv) C.W.P. No. 1845 of 1987 is also dismissed for the delay in approaching the Court is almost 12 years. In these cases, the parties are left to bear their own costs. 62. Category'4 : (i) C.W.P. No. 3085 of 1988 is dismissed as infructuous because of the dismissal of C. W. P. No. 1903 of 1987, as a result of acceptance of L.P.A. No. 402 of 1988 No costs. (ii) C. W.P. No. 4138 of 1988 is dismissed in limine because of the dismissal of C.W.P. No. 1903 of 1987 as a result of acceptance of L.P.A. No. 402 of 1988. No costs. 63. Category 5 : The Letters Patent Appellants in L.P.A. No. 283 of 1988 were the writ petitioners in C.W.P. No. 1599 of 1985. It was dismissed by D. V. Sehgal, J. relying on an earlier decision in Jatinder Singh v Punjab State Electricity Board (1986) 1 S LR 692 : (1986 Lab IC 1693). The appellants herein as also the private respondents Nos. 2 to 21 joined as Sectional Officers (now designated as Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade I on various dates. Inter se seniority was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion need not be scientifically perfect or logically complete. In applying the wide language of Arts. 14 and 16 to concrete cases a doctrinaire approach should be avoided and the matter considered in a practical way, of course, without whittling down the equality clauses. On that principle are based S.L. Sachdev's case MANU/SC/0441/1980 : (1980 Lab IC 1321) (supra), Roop Chand Adlakha's case MANU/SC/0413/1988 : (1989 Lab IC 1268) and Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case (1986 Lab IC 2076) (supra). In Roop Chand Adlakha's case (supra) the State was held not precluded from conferring eligibility on diploma-holders conditioning it by other requirements which included certain quantum of service, experience, consistent with the requirements of promotional posts and in the interest of efficiency of the service. There the quota rule based on those considerations was upheld. It had been ruled in that case that unless the provision is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or to bring about grossly unfair results judicial policy should be one of judicial restraint. The prescriptions may be somewhat cumbersome or produce some hardship in their application in some individual cases; but th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
