Introduction
Date of the Judgment: September 11, 2008
The Supreme Court of India addressed a critical question regarding promotions within the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation: Should promotions to the post of Superintending Engineer be based on merit or seniority? This issue arose from a dispute where an Executive Engineer, despite being placed in Category I (based on merit), was not promoted due to his junior status compared to others in Category II. The Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies the importance of merit in such promotions.
The bench comprised Justice C.K. Thakker and Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Case Background
The case originated from a writ petition filed by Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, an Executive Engineer at Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (formerly known as Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board). Mishra, who was eligible for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, was placed in Category-I by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) based on his high marks (191.3 out of 200). Despite this, he was not promoted. Mishra contended that several posts of Superintending Engineer were available and should have been filled first from Category-I Executive Engineers before considering those in Category-II. He argued that the Corporation’s action was illegal and inconsistent with the regulations, leading him to approach the High Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| N/A | Ayodhya Prasad Mishra was working as an Executive Engineer. |
| N/A | The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) considered Mishra’s case for promotion to Superintending Engineer. |
| N/A | Mishra was placed in Category-I based on marks obtained. |
| N/A | Mishra was not promoted despite being in Category-I. |
| N/A | Mishra approached the High Court by instituting a writ petition. |
| May 17, 2007 | The High Court directed the Corporation to offer Mishra the first available vacancy of Superintending Engineer and promote him to the said post. |
| September 5, 2007 | The Supreme Court issued a notice and granted time to file a counter affidavit. |
| March 10, 2008 | The Supreme Court directed the Registry to post the appeal for final hearing during the first part of the summer vacation. |
| September 11, 2008 | The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Corporation. |
Legal Framework
The case is governed by the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Service of Engineers Regulations, 1970. The regulations, framed under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, outline the conditions of service for engineers, including appointments and promotions. Key regulations include:
- Regulation 5(2): States that appointments to higher posts shall be made by promotion on the basis of selections in accordance with the procedure laid down in Appendix ‘D’.
- Regulation 18: Specifies that appointments to the posts of Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer, Chief Engineer (Level II), and Chief Engineer (Level I) shall be made by the Appointing Authority from the ‘Select List’ prepared in Rule 8(1) of Appendix ‘D’.
- Appendix D, Para 6: States that selection to the post of Chief Engineer (L-1), Chief Engineer (L-II), and Superintending Engineer shall be made on the basis of Merit while promotion to the post of E.E. shall be based on seniority subject to rejection of the unfit.
- Appendix D, Para 8: Describes the preparation of a list for selection and of selected candidates, emphasizing that the Selection Committee shall prepare a list of officers adjudged most suitable for promotion, keeping in view the criteria.
Arguments
Arguments by U.P. Power Corporation:
- ✓ Promotions should be based on seniority among eligible candidates, regardless of their placement in Category I or II.
- ✓ Executive Engineers in Categories I and II are both eligible for promotion, and inter se seniority should be maintained.
- ✓ The counsel appearing for the Corporation had no power to make any concession on behalf of the Corporation.
Arguments by Ayodhya Prasad Mishra:
- ✓ Promotions to the post of Superintending Engineer should be based on merit, giving priority to those in Category I.
- ✓ The scheme of statutory regulations allows no interpretation other than the one accepted by the High Court.
- ✓ Executive Engineers in Category I should be considered before any Executive Engineer in Category II.
Submissions Categorized by Main Arguments
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by U.P. Power Corporation | Sub-Submissions by Ayodhya Prasad Mishra |
|---|---|---|
| Promotion Criteria |
✓ Seniority should be the primary factor among eligible candidates. ✓ Categories I and II are both eligible, and seniority should be maintained. |
✓ Merit should be the primary factor, prioritizing Category I. ✓ Regulations clearly favor merit-based promotions for Superintending Engineers. |
| Interpretation of Regulations | ✓ Regulations protect the seniority of all officers in the cadre of Executive Engineers. | ✓ Regulations mandate that Category I candidates be considered first for promotion. |
| Concession by Counsel | ✓ Counsel had no authority to make concessions on behalf of the Corporation. | ✓ N/A |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- How should promotion be effected from the post of Executive Engineer to the post of Superintending Engineer?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt With It | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| How should promotion be effected from the post of Executive Engineer to the post of Superintending Engineer? | The Court held that promotion should be based on merit. | The Court emphasized that the regulations prioritize merit for higher posts like Superintending Engineer, and those in Category I should be considered first. |
Authorities
Cases and Legal Provisions Relied Upon by the Court
- ✓Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Section 79(c): Used as the basis for framing regulations regarding the service conditions of engineers.
- ✓Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Service of Engineers Regulations, 1970: Defined the service conditions, appointments, and promotions of engineers.
- ✓Olga Tellis v. Municipal Corporation, Bombay, (1985) 3 SCC 545 (Supreme Court of India): Cited to support the doctrine of ‘reasonable construction’ in interpreting regulations.
- ✓Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394 (Supreme Court of India): Cited to support the doctrine of ‘reasonable construction’ in interpreting regulations.
- ✓N. Suresh Nathan v. Union of India, (1992) Supp 1 SCC 584 (Supreme Court of India): The court distinguished this case and stated that normally, a Court would not disturb past practice consistently followed by the Department if the view taken or practice followed is also reasonable.
- ✓S.B. Bhattacharjee v. S.D. Majumdar & Ors., (2007) 6 SCR 743 (Supreme Court of India): The court distinguished this case and stated that normally, a Court would not disturb past practice consistently followed by the Department if the view taken or practice followed is also reasonable.
- ✓B.S. Bajwa & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (1998) 2 SCC 523 (Supreme Court of India): Cited to support the principle that a concession of law cannot bind a party.
- ✓Union of India v. Mohanlal Likumal Punjabi, (2004) 3 SCC 628 (Supreme Court of India): Cited to support the principle that a concession of law cannot bind a party.
- ✓Union of India & Anr. v. S.C. Parashar, (2006) 3 SCC 167 (Supreme Court of India): Cited to support the principle that a concession of law cannot bind a party.
Authorities Considered by the Court
| Authority | How It Was Viewed |
|---|---|
| Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Section 79(c) | Basis for framing regulations. |
| Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Service of Engineers Regulations, 1970 | Interpreted and applied to determine promotion criteria. |
| Olga Tellis v. Municipal Corporation, Bombay, (1985) 3 SCC 545 | Cited to support the doctrine of ‘reasonable construction’. |
| Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394 | Cited to support the doctrine of ‘reasonable construction’. |
| N. Suresh Nathan v. Union of India, (1992) Supp 1 SCC 584 | Distinguished. |
| S.B. Bhattacharjee v. S.D. Majumdar & Ors., (2007) 6 SCR 743 | Distinguished. |
| B.S. Bajwa & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (1998) 2 SCC 523 | Cited to support the principle that a concession of law cannot bind a party. |
| Union of India v. Mohanlal Likumal Punjabi, (2004) 3 SCC 628 | Cited to support the principle that a concession of law cannot bind a party. |
| Union of India & Anr. v. S.C. Parashar, (2006) 3 SCC 167 | Cited to support the principle that a concession of law cannot bind a party. |
Judgment
How Each Submission Made by the Parties Was Treated by the Court
| Submission | How the Court Treated It |
|---|---|
| Corporation’s submission that promotions should be based on seniority among eligible candidates, regardless of category. | Rejected. |
| Mishra’s submission that promotions should be based on merit, giving priority to those in Category I. | Accepted. |
| Corporation’s submission that the counsel appearing for the Corporation had no power to make any concession on behalf of the Corporation. | The court stated that there cannot be two opinions that a concession of law cannot bind a party. |
How Each Authority Was Viewed by the Court
- ✓ The court relied on the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Service of Engineers Regulations, 1970 to determine the promotion criteria.
- ✓ The court cited Olga Tellis v. Municipal Corporation, Bombay, (1985) 3 SCC 545 and Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394 to support the doctrine of ‘reasonable construction’ in interpreting regulations.
- ✓ The court distinguished N. Suresh Nathan v. Union of India, (1992) Supp 1 SCC 584 and S.B. Bhattacharjee v. S.D. Majumdar & Ors., (2007) 6 SCR 743 and stated that normally, a Court would not disturb past practice consistently followed by the Department if the view taken or practice followed is also reasonable.
- ✓ The court cited B.S. Bajwa & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (1998) 2 SCC 523; Union of India v. Mohanlal Likumal Punjabi, (2004) 3 SCC 628; Union of India & Anr. v. S.C. Parashar, (2006) 3 SCC 167 to support the principle that a concession of law cannot bind a party.
What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that merit should be the sole criterion for promotions to higher posts such as Superintending Engineer. The Court emphasized that:
- ✓ The scheme of statutory regulations explicitly states that promotion to higher posts is based on merit.
- ✓ Placement of Executive Engineers in Category I and Category II is lawful, reasonable, and rational.
- ✓ Treating unequals (those in different categories) as equals would offend the doctrine of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Ranking of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Emphasis on Merit as the Sole Criterion | 40% |
| Lawful and Rational Categorization | 30% |
| Constitutional Mandate of Equality | 30% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Consideration of Factual Aspects of the Case (Fact) | 30% |
| Legal Considerations (Law) | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
The court’s logical reasoning can be summarized as follows:
Executive Engineers Considered for Promotion ↓ Regulations Specify Merit for Higher Posts ↓ Executive Engineers Placed in Categories Based on Merit ↓ Category I Engineers Given Priority for Promotion
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that seniority should override merit, emphasizing that such an interpretation would render the regulations arbitrary and unreasonable. The Court also clarified that a concession of law cannot bind a party, but in this case, the so-called concession was consistent with the statutory regulations and the Constitution.
Key quotes from the judgment include:
- “The selection to the post of Chief Engineer (L-1), Chief Engineer (L-II) and Superintending Engineer shall be made on the basis of Merit while promotion to the post of E.E. shall be based on seniority subject to rejection of the unfit.”
- “Every classification, to be legal, valid and permissible, must fulfil the twin-test…the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia…and such differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.”
- “Treating of unequals as equals would as well offend the doctrine of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Promotions to higher engineering posts (Superintending Engineer and above) should be based primarily on merit.
- ✓ Executive Engineers placed in Category I, based on merit, must be given preference over those in Category II.
- ✓ The judgment reinforces the importance of fair and rational classification in promotion policies, aligning with constitutional principles.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that merit should be the primary criterion for promotions to higher engineering posts, specifically Superintending Engineer and above. This clarifies that seniority cannot override merit in such promotions, reinforcing a merit-based approach.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The judgment reinforces the principle that merit should be the primary criterion for promotions to higher engineering posts, ensuring that the most qualified candidates are given preference.