Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDPATIALA & ANR versus SAWINDER SINGH

Supreme Court Cases

JT 1996 (3) 194 1996 SCALE (2)269

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDPATIALA & ANR V. SAWINDER SINGH [1996] RD-SC 181 (2 February 1996)

RAMASWAMY, K.

RAMASWAMY, K.

G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION: JT 1996 (3) 194 1996 SCALE (2)269

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

O R D E R Delay condoned.

In Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & Anr. vs.

Ravinder Kumar Sharma [(1987) (1) SCR 72], the quota system for promotion was held to be bad in law. Consequently, the Electricity Board by its order dated November 14, 1986 extended the principle of seniority-cum-merit as the principle which was reiterated by this Court in C.A..7792/95 @ SLP (C) No.22179/94 titled Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. vs. Harvinder Singh dated August 24, 1995.

The petitioners were directed to consider the case of the respondent for promotion as on November 14, 1986. In this Special Leave Petition arising out of RSA No.2415/94, the High Court summarily dismissed the second appeal upholding the order of the appellate Court. The appellate Court in its judgment and decree dated February 23, 1994 modified the triai Court decree and stated that the defendants-appellants should consider the case of the plaintiff for promotion as on the date it was due and it is for the competent authority to take all the relevant factors into consideration and to decide as to whether the plaintiff was entitled for promotion. Further direction was given to dispose it of within the specified time with which we are not concerned.

It is contended by Mr. Sodhi, learned counsel for the petitioners that the date, as envisaged in the judgment, is not relevant as it was structurally altered by judgment of this Court and due to the decision taken by the Board on November 14, 1986 doing away with the quota system and introducing the principle of seniority-cum-merit as the criteria to be considered for promotion of the candidates like the respondent. The direction given by the appellate Court and confirmed by the High Court, therefore, is not in conformity with the law laid down by this Court. We find that the construction put up by the Board does not appear to be correct. The appellate Court merely directed to follow the relevant principles and consider whether the respondent would be eligible or not as on the day when it was due to him. In the light of the law laid down by this Court, it is open to the petitioners to consider the case in accordance with the rules and to pass appropriate order, Therefore, we do not think it is a case warranting further expression of any opinion on the matter as law has already been laid down by this Court.

The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.