Supreme Court Upholds Policy Decision on Promotion Channels for Technical Staff: T.N. Electricity Board vs. T.N. Electricity Board Thozhilalar Aykkiya Sangam (2008)

Date of the Judgment: 14th February 2008

Citation: Appeal (civil) 1279 of 2008

Judges: A.K. Mathur and Aftab Alam

Can a government organization change its service rules to alter the promotion channels for its employees? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) and its employees’ association. The core issue was whether TNEB’s decision to restrict the promotion avenues for Helpers, who possess specific technical qualifications (NTC/NAC), to only technical posts, excluding them from administrative roles, was justified. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice A.K. Mathur and Justice Aftab Alam.

Case Background

The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Thozhilalar Aykkiya Sangam, representing its General Secretary, filed Petition No. 3314 of 1993, challenging Note 3 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, 1967. The association argued that this note, which created a distinct class of candidates holding I.T.I. Certificates with National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate (NTC/NAC) recruited as Helpers in Regular Works Establishment (REW), was discriminatory and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The Sangam contended that this classification lacked an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the objective of selecting candidates for the posts of Junior Assistant/Assessors. They claimed that their members were unfairly barred from applying for Junior Assistant positions, despite possessing qualifications comparable to other candidates.

The Electricity Board defended the regulation by stating that the roles and promotion paths for Helpers in Regular Works Establishment differed significantly from those of Junior Assistants/Typists/Assessors. Helpers were primarily assigned to technical field work, with promotions leading to positions such as Wireman, Lineman, Foreman, and Junior Engineer. In contrast, Junior Assistants performed clerical duties in administrative and accounts departments, with promotions leading to Assistant, Administrative/Accounts Supervisor, and Assistant Administrative Officer/Assistant Accounts Officer roles.

The Board further explained that a policy decision, following a government recommendation outlined in the office order dated 23rd May 1986, mandated that Helpers (including Fitters, Turners, Machinists, etc.) be recruited from individuals holding N.T.C. or N.A.C. certificates awarded by the National Council for Training and Vocational Trade. Consequently, the T.N. Service Regulations were amended to include Note 3, explicitly stating that candidates with N.T.C./N.A.C. certificates recruited as Helpers would not be eligible for internal selection to Junior Assistant and Typist positions.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The legal framework relevant to this case includes:

• Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India: These articles guarantee equality before the law and equal opportunity in matters of public employment, respectively. The petitioner argued that Note 3 violated these articles by creating an unreasonable classification.
• Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. The petitioner also argued that Note 3 violated this article.

Arguments

Arguments by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Thozhilalar Aykkiya Sangam:

• ✓ The classification of candidates holding I.T.I. Certificates with NTC/NAC recruited as Helpers in Regular Works Establishment (REW) as a distinct class is not based on any intelligible differentia.
• ✓ This classification does not have a rational nexus to the objective of selection to the post of Junior Assistant/Assessors, etc.
• ✓ Note 3 unfairly debars members of their Association from applying for the post of Junior Assistant along with other similarly placed candidates, possessing lesser qualification.

Arguments by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board:

• ✓ The nature of work and channel of promotions to the Helpers in Regular Works Establishment is entirely different from that of Junior Assistant/Typist/Assessors.
• ✓ Helpers are utilized for field work of technical nature and their channel of promotion is Wireman, Lineman, Foreman and Junior Engineer.
• ✓ Junior Assistants are posted for clerical works in office in Administrative and Accounts Cadre and their channel of promotion is Assistant, Administrative/Accounts Supervisor and Assistant Administrative Officer/Assistant Accounts Officer.
• ✓ The Board’s decision was a policy decision taken in pursuance of the office order dated 23rd May, 1986 on recommendations of Government.
• ✓ Note 3 was inserted in the regulations consequent to the resolution of the Board.
• ✓ The candidates holding N.T.C./N.A.C. recruited as Helper shall not be eligible for internal selection to the post of Junior Assistant and Typist including Steno-Typists.
• ✓ The Board has decided on a rational basis that the channel of promotion of technical persons will be on technical side and not on the administrative side.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether Note 3 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulation, 1967 is ultra vires being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The court relied on the following authorities:

• P.U. Joshi and others versus Accountant General, Ahmedabad and others reported in 2003(2) SCC 632 [Supreme Court of India]: This case stated that “There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service.”

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge and the order of the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court held that the Board’s decision to lay down a qualification for appointment to the post of Helper i.e. NTC/NAC and provide a channel of promotion for such persons to the higher post on the technical side, such provision cannot be said to be ultra vires of Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(g).

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• P.U. Joshi and others versus Accountant General, Ahmedabad and others reported in 2003(2) SCC 632: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that employees do not have a right to claim that service rules should remain unchanged and that the State has the authority to amend service rules.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• ✓ The policy decision of the Board to channelize the promotions of Helpers with NTC/NAC certificates to technical posts.
• ✓ The principle that employees do not have a vested right to claim that service rules should remain unchanged.
• ✓ The understanding that the Board has the prerogative to decide the channel of promotion for technical and non-technical persons.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Government organizations have the right to make policy decisions regarding the channel of promotions for different categories of employees.
• ✓ Employees cannot claim that service rules should remain unchanged and are subject to amendments made by the employer.
• ✓ Courts generally respect the policy decisions of organizations unless they are found to be arbitrary or discriminatory.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that government organizations have the right to make policy decisions regarding the channel of promotions for different categories of employees, and employees cannot claim that service rules should remain unchanged.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the policy decision of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to restrict the promotion channels for Helpers with NTC/NAC certificates to technical posts, emphasizing that such policy decisions are within the Board’s purview and do not violate constitutional rights.