JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) This Writ Petition assails the validity of the Office Memorandum dated 27.02.2015 whereby an amendment has been introduced relating to the possession of qualification of a diploma course relaxing the same by substituting it with a two months training for promotion of a Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer in the U.P. State Electricity Board under the U.P. State Electricity Board Service of Engineer Regularization, 1970. A further prayer has been made directing the respondents to promote the petitioner or carry out the entire promotions in terms of the Office Memorandum issued on 31.05.2013.
(2.) The facts leading to this dispute are that the Office Memorandum dated 31.05.2013 introduced an eligibility condition of possession of a diploma course for the promotion of Junior Engineer in the mechanical stream to the post of Assistant Engineer. The said dispute came up for consideration before a Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 29229 of 2014 that was disposed off on 26.05.2014 by making certain observations. The judgement is extracted herein under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
The petitioners who are Junior Engineers of the Mechnical stream are challenging the amendment in their service regulations by which the condition of diploma in Mechanical Engineering has been introduced as an eligibility condition for the purposes of consideration for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Engineer.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that on account of the aforesaid amendment in the service regulations, avenues of promotion to the petitioners which were available under the earlier regulation, have been abolished and they have been completely ousted from the zone of consideration.As a consequence of which why they will continue to stagnate and will retire while working on the post of Junior Engineer. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioners are willing to acquire the qualification of advertisement in Mechanical Engineering, however, the opposite parties are not providing the requisite opportunity to acquire the same. He also submits that the acquisition of such qualification by distant education mode has been prohibited by the opposite party.
On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation submits that the Corporation is well within its rights to prescribe a higher qualification as an eligibility condition for the purposes of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, as, with the development in the field of engineering better qualified persons are required on the post in question.
He also contends that the amendment in question was necessitated by the requirement of the Boiler Operation Engineer Rules, 2011. He further submits that two years leave is permissible for acquiring the requisite qualification.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the complete exclusion of the petitioners from the zone of consideration for promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer and their inequitable stagnation on the lower post of Junior Engineer throughout their career may not be in the interest of the functioning of the Corporation nor in the interest of the petitioners. At least the Corporation could have provided the requisite facility/opportunity to the petitioners to acquire the qualification of advertisement in Mechanical Engineering or to reserve a particular quota for them so that their promotion to the post of Assistant Engineering could be made after considering of the relevant aspects of the matter. The Supreme Court has held in a catena of decision that an employee should get at least two promotion in his career.
On a perusal of the impugned resolution of the Board we find that the relevant aspects have not been taken into consideration by the Board before taking the impugned decision. We also feel that the Board, while taking the aforesaid decision, has not considered the promotional prospects of the Junior Engineer Mechanical who did not possess the qualification of diploma in Mechanical Engineering which has now been introduced while they are in the mid stream of their career. A complete negation of the promotional prospects appears to be unreasonable. A reference may be made in this regard to the recent decision in the case of Panchraj Tiwari Vs. M.P. State Electricity Board, 2014 3 LAWS(SC) 7.
However, since it is a policy matter we restrain ourselves from interfering with the said resolution at this stage with the observation that the respondents shall look into the matter afresh and take a reasoned and considered decision in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before respondent no.2. It shall be open to the petitioners to submit a detailed representation raising their grievances with regard to their avenues of promotion. In the event such a representation is moved, the same shall also be considered by the Board of the Corporation within the aforesaid period.
The petitioners shall disclose their separate qualifications in the representation to enable the Board to consider it accordingly.
A certified copy of this order may be issued to the learned counsel for the parties for onward transmission on payment of usual charges.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly."
(3.) Pursuant to the aforesaid judgement of the High Court, the matter was reconsidered by a Committee constituted by the Board and the report dated 25.08.2014 has been filed as Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition. The said Committee expressed it's concern and recommended that non-diploma holders Junior Engineers are getting the benefit of the assured career promotion scheme and are also entitled for promotion to Technical Grade-II and selection grade/time scale of pay as such they have an avenue in order to remove any stagnation. It was also stated in the report that all these non-diploma holders were promoted as Junior Engineers in the year 2005-06, which post was not held by them prior to that.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.