Holding

The quota for promotion based on diploma versus non‑diploma qualifications is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16, rendering the promotion orders void and entitling the senior employee to promotion.

Summary

Ravinder Kumar Sharma, a line‑man employed by the Punjab State Electricity Board, was senior to several colleagues who were promoted to the post of line‑superintendent in 1977. The Board had fixed a quota reserving a percentage of promotions for diploma‑holding line‑men, thereby bypassing Sharma, who, although a non‑diploma holder, satisfied the statutory qualifications for promotion. Sharma filed suit alleging that the quota system was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Subordinate Judge, the Additional District Judge and the Punjab & Haryana High Court all held that the quota was illegal and ordered Sharma to be deemed promoted from the date his juniors were promoted. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts, declaring the quota unconstitutional and dismissing the Board’s appeals and special leave petitions.

Issues considered

Whether a public authority may fix a quota based on educational qualifications (diploma vs non‑diploma) for promotion within a common cadre having a joint seniority list.
Whether such a quota violates the equality clauses of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the promotion orders issued in contravention of the quota are void and the senior employee is entitled to promotion.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 14, s. 16, s. 309

Subjects

EqualityArticles 14 and 16PromotionQuotaDiscriminationPublic ServiceSeniorityConstitutional Law

Judgment

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
A
PATIALA & ANR. ETC.
v.
RAVINDER KUMAR SHARMA & ORS., ETC.

OCTOBER 27, 1986
B
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950---Articles 14 & 16--State Electricity Y
Bqard-Service rule-Promotion from post of line men to line
superintendent-Differentiation between diploma and non-diploma
C qualified line men-Fixation of quota on such basis-Held illegal and (
unconstitutional. -{__;

Civil Services-P. W.D. (Electricity Branch) Provisional Class Ill
(Subordinate Posts) Rules, 1952-Line· Men to Line Superintendent- )t
Promotion of-Differentiation between diploma and non-diploma
D hoiders in fixation of quota for promotion-Whether valid and
constitutional.

Plaintiff-respondent Ravinder Komar Sharma joined service as a
Line-Man nnder the respondent-Electricity Board. The terms and con-
ditions of the service of the Line-Man as well as of the Line-Superinten-
E dent were governed by the P. W.D. (Electricity Branch) Provisional
Class III (Snbordinate posts) Rules 1952. The Line-Man are either
diploma holders or I.T .I. trained or non-diploma holders and they form
and constitute one common cadre known as Line-Man and were in the

-
same scale of pay. The seniority list of all the Line-Man is common and
joint. By o~der dated 12.7.1977, the respondent-Board promoted Gur-
F dial Singh, Jaswant Singh and Ramesh Kumar shown in the common
seniority list at S. Nos. 1451, 1546 and 2309 respectively, to the post of ,.
Line-Superintendent even though the plaintiff-respondent's position in /~

~-
the seniority list was at S. No. 995 and he was senior to the said officials.
By order dated I 7 .8.1977 the Chief Engineer of the respondent-Electri-
city Board further promoted Sudesh Kumar and Virender Kumar \.
G whose name stand at S. No. 1877 and 2279 in the joint seniority list. The
Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit alleging that this policy of promotion
from Line-Man to Line-Superintendent on a pick and choose basis by
roong a qnota between the diploma holders and non-diploma holders is
wholly illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary as it adversely affected
the promotional prospect of the non-diploma holders Line-Men and
H prayed for a decree declaring that the orders dated 12.7.1977 and

72
ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA v. R.K. SHARMA· 7.'

17.8.1977 promoting the defendants 3 to 7 are iUegal, discriminatory A
and null ;md void as it arbitrarily affects the rights of the plaintiff who
is· senior to them and that he be promoted to the post of Line-
Snperintendent from the date defendant Nos. 3 to 7 were promoted.

The defendant Nos. I and 2 contested the claim of the plaintiff
contending that the terms and conditions of service of Line-Man and the B
Line-Superintendent are governed hy the P. W.D. (Electricity Branch)
Provisional Service Class III (Subordinate Posts) Rules 1952 framed by
the State Government under Art. 309 of the Constitution, that the
Electricity Board by various orders prescribed quota for diploma
holders Line-Men for promotion to the post of Line-Superintendent,
that according to this quota the defendant Nos. 3 to 7 have been promo- c
ted and that the fixation of the quota on the basis of educational
qualification cannot be questioned as arbitrary or discriminatory.

The Subordinate Judge First Class decreed the suit, holding that
the plaintiff was entitled to promotion to the post' of Line-Superin-
tendent and the orders dt.12.7.1977 and 17.8.1977 whereby the de- D
fendant Nos. 3 to 7 were promoted even though they were junior to the
plaintiff are illegal and in violation of the rights of the plaintiff and,
therefore, the plaintiff was declared to have been promoted from the
date when his said juniors were promoted.

The appeal filed by the .State Electricity Board was dismissed by E
the Additional District Judge holding that there was no reasonable
nexus by fixing quota for promoting diploma-holders Line-Men to the

- post of Line-Superintendent even though the non-diploma holders as
well as the diploma holders formed the joint cadre of Line-Man for
promotion to the post of Line-Superintendent. The judgmef!tS and de-
crees of the Courts below were affirmed by the High Court. F

Dismissing the Appeals and the Special Leave Petition,

HELD: I. There is no dispute, rather it is not controverted that
in the joint seniority list of Line-Men the plaintiff-respondent's name
·was mentioned at S. No. 995 whereas names of defendant Nos. 3 to 7 G
appear in the said list at S. Nos. 1451, 1546, 2309, 1877 and 2279
respectively. Therefore, all the defendant Nos. 3 to 7 are junior to the
plaintiff-respondent. It is also clear and evident from the Office Order
No. 97 dated 22. 10.68 that the qualification for promotion to the post of
Line-Superintendent from Line-Man is either holding certificate or
diploma in Electrical Engineering from any recognised institute or H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] 1 S.C. R.

A having passed 11/z years course in the electrical trade of Electrician/ '>-
Line-Man/ Wire-Man from recognised Industrial Trainin,: Institute •
and are matriculates and have worked as Line-Man for four years
continuously and immediately before the promotion. [80A-C]

2. The plaintiff-respondent who is an Arts Graduate and have
B l.T.I. Certificate (in the trade of electrician two years' duration) and
also have National Apprentice Certificate in the trade of Line-Man 3
years' duration is eligible for promotion to the post of Line-Superin-
tendent as he has fulfilled all the requisite qualifications. All the Line-
Men either diploma holders or non-diploma holders are performing the
same kind of work and duties and they belong to the same cadre having
C common/joint seniority list for promotion to the post of Line-Superin-
tendent. The Orders dated 12.7.1977 being Order No. 73 promoting
defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as well as Office Order No. 898 dated 17 .8. 77
promoting defendant Nos. 6 and 7 on the basis of quota from diploma
holders as fixed by the order of the State Electricity Board dated 9.5.74
is wholly arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and violative of the equality
D clause contained in Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitutior. inasmuch as it
purports to promote defendant Nos. 3 to 7 who are admittedly junior to
the plaintiff-respondent in service as Line-Man in the State Electricity
Board. [800-G]

Shujat Ali's case (1975] I SCR 449 at 480 followed.
E
3. There is no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court affirm-
ing the judgment and decree of the Courts below. (81 E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
3341-42/83 & S.L.P. No.2693/84
F
From the Judgment & Order dated 25-1-83 of the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana in Regular Second Appeal No. 254/83

Hardev Singh and R.S. Sodhi for the Appellants.

G C.S. Vaidyanathan for the Appellants in C.A. No. 3342/83.

Respondent-in-person.
-f
•
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H B.C. RAY, J. These two appeals by special leave one by the
'·
ELECTRICITY BOARD. PATIALA v. R.K. SHARMA (RAY. J.) 75

Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and the other by Gurdial Singh A
& Ors. who were defendant-respondent Nos. 3,4,6 and 7 in Civii Suit
No. 293T/16-l-181/17-7-80 passed in R.S.A. No. 254/38 whereby the
judgments and the decrees of the courts below were affirmed dec-
reeing the plaintiff respondent's suit declaring that the plaintiff-
respondent be deemed to have been promoted from the date when his
juniors as mentioned in the suit were promoted to the posts of Line- B
Superintendents.

The case of the plaintiff in short is that the plaintiff-respondent
Ravinder Kumar Sharma joined the service under the respondent No.
l, Punjab State Electricity Board as a Line-Man on 25th December,
1969 and he worked as apprentice Line-Man from 29.12.1969 to c
28. 12. 1970 on a fixed salary of Rs. 140 per month. Thereafter he was
allowed regular scale of pay of Rs. 110-330 since the date of his joining
as a Line-Man. The temis and conditions of the service of the Line-
Men as well as of the Line-Superintendent are governed by the rules
framed by the Punjab Government in exercise of its powers under Art.
309 of the Constitution of India which were termed as P.W.D. (Elec- D
tricity Branch) Provisional Class III (Subordinate posts) R.ules 1952.
Subsequently the State Electricity Board came into being and the
Electricity Department came under the administration of the State
Electricity Board.

The Plaintiff has stated in the plaint that as a Line-Man he had E
been performing his duties efficiently and honestly ancl there was
never any complaint against his work. His work and conduct had
always been appreciated by his superiors from.time to time. He posses-
ses the following qualifications:-

l. B.A. F

2. I. T. I. (in the trade of Electrician 2 year's duration).

3. National Apprentice Certificate in the trade of Line-Man (3 year's
I' duration). ·
G
All the Line-Men under the defendant No. l, that is, Punjab State
Electricity Board are either diploma holders or I. T. J: trained or non-
diploma holders and they form and constitute one common cadre
known as Line-Man and in the s"tlle scale of Rs. 110-330. The seniority
list of all these Line-Men is common and i'oint. It has been further
alleged that defendant No. l had been promoting officials from Line- H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R.

A Men to the Line-Superintendent on a pick and choose basis-in consi-
deration of the qualifications by fixing a quota between the diploma
holders and non-diploma holders and this has resulted in arbitrary
discrimination between the diploma holders and non diploma holders
Line-Men thereby adversely affecting the promotional prospect of the
non-diploma holders Line-Men. It has been further stated that this
B policy of the defendant No. I was set aside by the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in L.P. No. 618, 619 of 1975 fixing the quota between

C
diploma holders and non-diploma holders Line Superintendents by
orders dated 12.1. 1965 and 27 .6.1974. Though the minimum qualifica-
tion for promotion of Line-Man to Line-Superintendent is however
matriculation. The plaintiff also stated that by order dated 12.7.1977
the respondent No. I promoted Gurdial Singh whose nanie appeared
at S. No. 1451 in the common seniority list and also the defendant
J
Jaswant Singh whose name appeared at S. No. 1546 in the said list as
well as Ramesh Kumar standing at S. No. 2309 in the said seniority list
to the post of Line-Superintendent even though the plaintiffs position
in the seniority list was at S. No. 995 and he was senior to these
D officials. Thus the plaintiff was passed over while his juniors were
promoted. This policy of pick and choose, it has been stated, in pro-
moting the officials is wholly illegal and discriminatory. It has been
further pleaded that by office order No. 899 dated 17.8.1977 the
defendant No. 2, that is, the Chief Engineer of the Electricity Board
further promoted Sudesh Kumar and Virender Kumar whose name
E stand at S. No. 1877 and 2279 in the joint seniority list as Line-
Superintendent from the Line-Man. The petitioner, therefore, pleaded
that the action of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in fixing the quota between
diploma holders and non-diploma holders Line-Men for the purpose of
promotion to the post of Line-Superintendent and promoting the de-
fendants 3 to 7 to the posts of Line-Superintendent from Line-Man is
F wholly illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary. The plaintiff, therefore,
prayed fpr a decree declaring that the orders dated 12. 7. 1977 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 nqt being promoted to the cadre of Line-Superin-

G
tendent. The plaintiff also prayed for a direction that he be promoted
to the post of Line-Superintendent from the date defendant Nos. 3 to 7
•
were promoted to the said post.

The def.endant Nos. I and 2- contested the claim of the plaintiff
by filing written statement stating that the terms and conditions of
service of Line-Men and Line-Superintendent are governed by the
11 rules framed by the Punjab State Government under Art. 309 of the
ELECTRICITY BOARD. PATIALA v. R.K. SHARMA [RAY. J.] 77

Constitution and are termed as P.W.D. (Electricity Branch) Provi- A
sional Service Class III (Subordinate posts) Rule 1952. 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. On 9.5.1974 the quota of diploma holders Line-Men for B
';/ promotion to the Line-Superintendent was further increased to 33%
whereas the quota for promotion of non-diploma holders Line-Men to
the post of Line-Superintendent was fixed at 33%. It has be;n stated
\ that according to this quota the defendant Nos. 3 to 7 have been
t _}"--- promoted and the fixation of quota on the basis of educational qualifi-
cation cannot be.questioned as arbitrary or discriminatory.
c
After hearing both the parties the Subordinate Judge, !st 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 defend~nt Nos. 3 to 7 were promoted even though they
were junior to the plaintiff are illegal and in violation of the rights of D
the plaintiff. The suit was decreed and the plaintiff was declared to
have been promoted from the date when his juniors mentioned in the
plaint were promoted to the post of Line-Superintendent.

~-- Against th,is judgment and decree the Punjab State Electricity
Board, Patiala filed an appeal being C.A. No. 4368 of 1982. The E
Additiol)al District, Judge, Patiala after hearing the parties dismissed
the appeal with costs holding that there was no reasonable nexus by
fixing quota for promoting diploma-holders Line-Men to the post of
Line-Superintendent even though the non-diploma holder as well as
the diploma holders formed the joint cadre of Line-Men for promotion
to the post of pne-Superintendent. The judgment of the trial court F
was affirmed and it was also held that the appeal was not competent
inasmuch as there was no resolution of the board authorising the filing
of the appeal. The cross objection filed by the plaintiff-respondent was
allowed. ·
#

Against this judgment and decree the defendant Nos. I and 2 G
preferred an appeal being R.S.A. 254 of 1983. The said appeal was
dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the judgment
\·- and decrees of the court below were affirmed. It is against this judg-
ment and decree the aforesaid two appeals on special leave petition
have been filed in this Court.
H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] l S.C.R.

The only issue raised in this appeal is whether the defendant No.
A l, that is, the Punjab State Electricity Board is competent to discrimi-
nate between diploma holders and non-diploma holders Line-Men
forming the common cadre of Line-Men having a common seniority
list in promoting these Line-Men on the basis of quota fixed by the
order of the State Electricity Board even though the requisite qualifi-
B cation·for promotion for Line-Man to the post of Line-Superintendent
is either the holding of diploma or certificate for electrical engineering
from a recognised institute or the non-diploma holders having passed
one and half year's course in the trade of Electrician/Line-Man/Wire
Man from recognised Industrial Training Institute and are matriculates i
and have worked for four years as Line-Man continuously and --....,__ _,
immediately before promotion, as has been provided by the office -·
C order No. 97/ENG/BET/G-33 dated 22.10.1968 the relevant excerpt
of which is quoted herein below:-

''For Direct Recruihnent:

D a) Possess 3 years, certificate or diploma course in Electri-
cal Engineering from any recognised institute, or a certifi-
cate of having passed the N.C.C. Test conducted by the
State Board of Technical Education/All India Council for
Technical Education.

E b) Have passed action of the Institution of Engineering
(India) Exam. with Elementary Electrical Engineering as
the optional. paper.

For Pormotion

F c) (i) Haye passed 1112 years course in the Ele.ctrical Trades
of Electrician/Line-Man/ Wire-Man from recognised In-
dustrial Training Institutes and are matriculates and have
worked for 4 years as a Line-Man continuously and im-
mediately before promotion.
1 '

G (ii) Have passed Ph years course in the Electrical Trades
of Electrician/Line-Man/Wire-Man from .recognised In-
dustrial Training Institutes and are non-matriculates but
are capable of preparing estimates, writing up measure-
ment books accurately, keeping store accounts etc. and
have worked for 4 years as a Line-Man continuously and
H immediately before promotion.
ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA v. R.K. SHARMA [RAY, J.] 79

(iii) Persons holding diploma in Electrical Engineering of 3 A
to 4 years duration recruited as Line-Man against the reser-
vation of 60% fixed for recruitment of persons holding
certificate of l 1/2 years course in the Electrical Trades of
Electrician/Line-Man/Wire-Man from recognised Indus-
trial Training Institutes, have worked as Lin&-Man for 3
years continuously and immediately before promotion. On B
promotion as Line-Superintendent they will be given
weightage of 2 years' service as c9mpared to non-diploma
holders, at the time of fixation of their seniority and pay in
\
accordance wiih the instructions contained in Board's
t
}-- Memo No. 88774/84/BET/(33)L dated 29.12.1967.

D (i) Matriculates Line-Man having a total continuous
c
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 conti-
nuously and immediately before promotion.

(ii) Non-matriculates Line-Man having a total continuous D
service of·ll years as A.L.M. and Line-Man out of which
they should have worked as Line-Man for four years, con-
tinuously and immediately before promotion, provided
they are capable of preparing estimates, writing up mea-
surement books accurately keeping store accounts and in
addition are conve_rsant w.ith Consumer Accounts or pos- E
sess a special experience for transmission line work.

The State Electricity Board by its order dated 14.5.1970 intro-
duced the following quota for promotion to the cadre of Line-
Superiritendents: •
!'-
~ · I. Direct recruitment from the open market 62%
F

r · 2. Diploma holders Line-Men 5% •
3. Line Men non-diploma holders 33%.

This quota of promotion for diploma holders Line-Man to the post of
Line-Superintendent was further increased by office order No. 244 G
dated 2. 7. 1975 by fixing the quota for promotion of diploma holders
Line-Men already in service of the Board from 5% to 20%. Again by
office order No. 78 dated 9.6.1974 the State Electricity Board further
increased the quota of promotion of diploma holders Line-Man
already in the service of the Board from 20% to 33%.
H
r

80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] 1 S.C. R.

There is no dispute, rather it is not controverted that the position
A
of the plaintiff-respondent in the joint seniority list.of Line'Men in the
scale of Rs. 110-330 of the Pun jab State Electricity Board from
1.6.1967 to 31.8.1974 which has been filed as additional document by
the Punjab State Electricity Board in C.A. No. 3341 of 1983 that the.
plaintiff-respondent's name was mentioned at S. No. 995 whereas
B names of defendant Nos. 3 to 7 appear in the said list in S. Nos. 145 l,
1546, 2309, 1877 and 2279 respectively. Therefore all the defendant
Nos. 3 to 7 are undoubtedly junior to the plaintiff-respondent as Line-
Men in the joint seniority List of Line-Men comprising of both
diploma holders and non-diploma holders Line-Men in the same
cadre. It is also clear and evident from the office Order No. 97 dated ·-{
22.10. 1968 that the qualification for promotion to the post of Line-
( Superintendent from Line-Men is either holding oertificate or diploma
in electrical engineering from any recognised institute or having passed )I
11/i years course in the electrical trade of Electrician/Line-Man/ Wire-
Man from recognised Industrial Training Institute and are matriculates
and have worked as Line-Man for four years continuously and
D immediately before the promotion. The petitioner who is an Arts
Graduate and have LT.I. Certificate (in the trade of electrician 2
years' duration) and also have National Apprentioe Certificate in the
trade of Line-Man 3 years' duration is eligible for promotion to the
post of Line-Superintendent as he has fulfilled all the requisite qualifi-
. cations. There is no gain saying that all the Line-Men either diploma
E holders or non-diploma holders are performing the same kind of work
and duties and they belong to the same cadre having a common/joint
seniority list for promotion to the post of Line-Superintendent. The
orders dated 12.7.1977 being order No. 73 promoting defendant Nos.
3, 4 and 5 as well as office" order No. 898 dated 17 .8.1977 promoting
defendant Nos. 6 and 7 on the basis of quota from diploma holders as '
F fixed by the order of the State Electricity Board dated 9.5.1974 is r-1..
\
wholly arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and violative of the equality
clause contained in Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. of India in-
I
~,

asmuch as it purports to promote defendant Nos. 3 to 7 who are
admittedly junior to the respondent No. I in servioe as Line-Man in
the State Electricity Board. It has been rightly held by following the
G decision in Shujat Ali's case [1975] l S.C.R 449 at 480 that the promo-
tion of defendant Nos. 3 to 7 who are admittedly junior to the plaintiff-
respondent in the service as Line-Man to the post of Line-Superin-
tendent are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and so bad. It is perti-
nent to refer to the observations of this Court in the said case which
read as follows:
H
•

ELECTRICITY BOARD, ·PATIALA v. R.K. SHARMA [RAY, J.] 8l

·--;; "But where graduates and non-graduates· are both regar-
A
ded as fit and, therefore, eligible for promotion, it is
difficult to see how, consistently with the claim for equal
opportunity any differentiation can be made between them
by laying down a quota of promotion for each and giving
preferential treatment to graduates over non-graduates in
the matter of fixation of such quota. The result of fixation B
')<
·of quota of promotion for each of the two categories of
Supervisors would be that when a vacancy arises in the post

-
of Assistant Engineer, which, according to the quota is

.•
}- reserved for graduate Supervisors, a non-graduate Super-
visor cannot be promoted to that vacancy, even if he is
senior to all other graduate Supervisors and more suitable
than they. His opportunity for promotion would be limited
c
only to vacancies available for non-graduate Supervisors.
That would clearly amount to denial of equal opportunity
to him."
.
This observation apply with full force to the present case, and it D
has been rightly held by the High Court of Pun jab and Haryana that
the promotion of defendant Nos. 3 to 7 who are junior to the plaintiff-
respondent from Line-Man to the post of Line,Superintendent is
wholly bad and discriminatory and directed that the petitioner be
I
>-· .deemed to have been promoted to the post of Line-Superintendent
from the date the said defendants 3 to 7 had been promoted from E
Line-Man to Line-Superintendent. In olir considered opinion there is
no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court affirming the judgment
- and decree of the courts below and we agree with the reasonings and
conclusions arrived at by the courts below. The two appeals on special
leave are, therefore, dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.5000 to be
.~ paid by the appellant of C.A. No. 3341 of 1983 to the respondent No.
F
I.
,.}.

The Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala also filed special
leave petition (Civil) No. 2693 of 1984 against the judgment and order
dated .14.2.1984 passed in Civil Revision No. 407 of 1984 by the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the Revision Petition. This G
Revision Petition was filed against the order rejecting the appellant's
}- application for correction of the decree. As we have already dismissed
the appeals there is no merit in this special leave petition and the same
is accordingly dismissed.

A.P.J. Appeals & Petition dismissed. H