254/83 Hardev Singh and R.S. Sodhi for the Appellants.
The suit was decreed and the plaintiff was de clared to have been promoted from the date when his juniors mentioned in the plaint were promoted to the post of Line Superintendent.
The Additional District, Judge, Patiala after heating the parties dismissed the appeal with companyts holding that there was numberreasonable nexus by fixing quota for promoting diploma holders Line Men to the post of Line Superintendent even though the number diploma holder as well as the diploma holders formed the joint cadre of Line Men for promotion to the post of Line Superintendent.
309 of the Constitution and are termed as P.W.D. Electricity Branch Provisional Service Class III Subordinate posts Rule 1952.
The Plaintiff has stated in the plaint that as a Line Man he had been performing his duties efficiently and hon estly and there was never any companyplaint against his work.
The judgment of the trial companyrt was affirmed and it was also held that the appeal was number companypetent inasmuch as there was numberreso lution of the board authorising the filing of the appeal.
Against this judgment and decree the defendant Nos.
110 330 since the date of his joining as a Line Man.
140 per month.
The said appeal was dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the judgment and decrees of the companyrt below were af firmed.
It has been further stated that the State Electricity Board by office order dated 14.5.1970 prescribed a quota of 5 for diploma holders Line Men for promotion to the post of Line Superintendent This quota of diploma holders Line Men was increased to 20 by the Board by order dated 2.7.1973.
The petitioner, therefore, pleaded that the action of defendants Nos.
I and 2 preferred an appeal being R.S.A. 254 of 1983.
It is against this judgment and decree the aforesaid two appeals on special leave petition have been filed in this Court.
The cross objection filed by the plaintiff respondent was allowed.
1 and 2 companytested the claim of the plaintiff by filing written statement stating that the terms and companyditions of service of Line Men and Line Superintend ent are governed by the rules framed by the Punjab State Government under Art.
On 9.5.1974 the quota of diploma holders Line Men for promotion to the Line Superintendent was further increased to 33 whereas the quota for promotion of number diploma holders Line Men to the post of Line Superintendent was fixed at It has been stated that according to this quota the defendant Nos.
1877 and 2279 in the joint seniority list as Line Superintendent from the Line Man.
3 to 7 were promoted to the said post.
He possesses the following qualifications B.A. I.T.I. in the trade of Electrician 2 years duration .
3,4,6 and 7 in Civil Suit No.
National Apprentice Certificate in the trade of Line Man 3 years duration .
4368 of 1982.
After heating both the parties the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Patiala, held that the plaintiff was entitled to promotion to the post of Line Superintendent and the orders dated 12.7.1977 and 17.7.1977 whereby the defendant Nos.
1, Punjab State Electricity Board as a Line Man on 25th December, 1969 and he worked as apprentice Line Man from 29.12.1969 to 28.12.1970 on a fixed salary of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
254/38 whereby the judgments and the decrees of the companyrts below were affirmed decreeing the plaintiff respondents suit declaring that the plaintiffrespondent be deemed to have been promoted from the date when his juniors as mentioned in the suit were promoted to the posts of Line Superintendents.
1 and 2 in fixing the quota be tween diploma holders and number diploma holders Line Men for the purpose of promotion to the post of Line Superintendent and promoting the defendants 3 to 7 to the posts of Line Superintendent from Line Man is wholly illegal, unconstitu tional and arbitrary.
The defendant Nos.
Against this judgment and decree the Punjab State Elec tricity Board, Patiala filed an appeal being C.A. No.
3341 42/83 S.L.P. No.
3 to 7 were promoted even though they were junior to the plaintiff are illegal and in violation of the rights of the plaintiff.
3342/83.
3 to 7 have been promoted and the fixation of quota on the basis of educational qualification cannot be questioned as arbitrary or discriminatory.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. RAY, J. These two appeals by special leave one by the Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and the other by Gurdial Singh Ors.
who were defendant respondent Nos.
The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for a decree declaring that the orders dated 12.7.1977.
Subsequently the State Electricity Board came into being and the Electricity De partment came under the administration of the State Elec tricity Board.
His work and companyduct had always been appreciated by his superiors from time to time.
2693/84 .
Respondent in person.
The plaintiff also prayed for a direction that he be promoted to the post of Line Superintendent from the date defendant Nos.
The case of the plaintiff in short is that the plaintiff respondent Ravinder Kumar Sharma joined the service under the respondent No.
From the Judgment Order dated 25 1 83 of the High Court of Punjab Haryana in Regular Second Appeal No.
This Revision Petition was filed against the order rejecting the appellants applica tion for companyrection of the decree.293T/16 1 181/17 7 80 passed in R.S.A. No.
Thereafter he was allowed regular scale of pay of Rs.
and 17.8.1977 promoting the defendants 3 to 7 are illegal, discriminatory and null and void as it arbitrarily affects the rights of the plaintiff who is senior to them in number being promoted to the cadre of Line Superintendent.
