Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 276 (UTT)

Surya Kant Kukreti v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-06-28

U.C.DHYANI, V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.K. BIST, J. The writ-petitioner (appellant herein) filed Writ Petition No. 1012 (S/S) of 2016 challenging the resolution dated 18.03.2016 so far same relates to Agenda Item No. 53.21. By the said resolution, the Board of Directors of the Power Transmission Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd., in its 53rd meeting, accorded consent for providing promotional avenues to the post of Assistant Engineer under the 8.33% quota to the Junior Engineers, who possess B.Tech/A.M.I.E. degree from recognized institutions either at the time of joining (and have cleared the same at the time of joining) or have obtained the same through Distance Learning Programme, after taking approval from the Corporation. Further prayer is made for a direction to the respondents not to make any promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer on the basis of the resolution dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Board of Directors of the Power Transmission Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd. in its 53rd meeting. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner (appellant herein) obtained Diploma in Electronic & Mechanical (E&M) from the Government Polytechnic College. After obtaining Diploma in Electronic & Mechanical (E&M) from Govt. Polytechnic, petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the Power Transmission Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd. The qualification for the post of Junior Engineer (E&M) is three year Diploma in Engineering in Electricals/Electronic/Electrical and Electronics Communication/Applied Electronics and instrumentation with minimum 55% marks. The service conditions of the Assistant Engineer in the Power Transmission Corporation Uttarakhand Ltd. is governed by the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Services of Engineers Regulation, 1970, which were amended time to time. The service conditions of the Assistant Engineer in the Power Transmission Corporation Uttarakhand Ltd. is governed by the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Services of Engineers Regulation, 1970, which were amended time to time. As per the aforesaid U.P. Regulation, 1970, as substituted vide Office Memorandum dated 02.01.2002, total 50.34% of the post shall be filled up by way of direct recruitment and rest of the post shall be filled up by way of promotion under the promotion quota, total 40% shall be filled up by promotion from amongst member of Junior Engineer, who are confirmed on the post and have rendered at least 10 years of service as on 1st July of the selection year based on seniority subject to the elimination of unsuitable and 8.33% post shall be filled up by promotion from amongst Junior Engineers confirmed on the post, who have acquired the qualification of the B.E./A.M.I.E. (Section A & B) in Electricals Engineering after joining in the Corporation and have completed 10 years of service as on first day of July of the selection years, based on seniority, subject to the elimination of the unsuitable as per quota and further 1.33% post shall be filled up by promotion from amongst the Technical Assistants (E&M), who are confirmed on the post and have rendered at least 10 years service on first July of selection year based on seniority subject to the elimination of unsuitable as per quota. 3. According to the petitioner, the intention to fix quota of 8.33% for promotion on the post of Assistant Engineers from amongst Junior Engineers, who have acquired the qualification of B.E./A.M.I.E. (Section A & B) in Electricals Engineering after joining in the Corporation, was only to encourage the Junior Engineer to improve and update their technical knowledge, thereby enabling them in discharging their duties with more efficiency and expertise. 4. 4. Before the creation of the Power Transmission Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd., the Corporation was known as U.P. State Electricity Board and for the purpose to encourage the Junior Engineers for improving and updating their technical knowledge so that they may discharge their duties with more efficiency and expertise, the U.P. State Electricity Board provided a scheme for granting a special pay to those Junior Engineers, who have acquired an Engineering degree or A.M.I.E. (Associate Membership of Institution of Engineering) and in order to encourage those Junior Engineer, who acquired an engineering degree, in the field of electrical, mechanical, electronics and civil engineering recognized by the State Government/Board or the Junior Engineer, who had successfully completed Section (A&B) of A.M.I.E. during their service. 5. On 11.08.2009, the respondent-corporation granted permission to the petitioner, permitting him to appear in the examination of A.M.I.E. in the Academic Session 2008-09. After obtaining permission from the respondent-corporation, the petitioner appeared in the examination of A.M.I.E. and passed the said examination. Thereafter, on 27.08.2013 the respondent-corporation passed an order, granting the special pay of Rs. 135, in place of Rs. 50, to those Junior Engineers, who acquired the A.M.I.E. (Section (A&B) during their service. 6. The Hon’ble Single Judge, vide his judgment and order dated 20.05.2016, dismissed the writ petition in the following manner: “Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. TPS Takuli, Brief Holder, for the State/ respondent no. 1. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate, for the respondents no. 2 & 3. Petitioner has prayed to declare the resolution dated 18.3.2016, so far it relates to the Agenda Item No. 53.21, passed by the Board of Directors of the Power Transmission Corporation of Uttarakhand in its 53rd meeting, to be illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned resolution. It is not even a case where counter affidavit is required. Petition is dismissed at the very threshold.” 7. Aggrieved by the order passed by learned Single Judge, the present Special Appeal is preferred. 8. The writ petition is filed mainly on the ground that both the degree holder and diploma holder are different class, as they have different education qualification and as such, the action of the respondent, in including the degree holders Junior Engineers in the quota fixed for the Diploma holder engineers, is unreasonable. 8. The writ petition is filed mainly on the ground that both the degree holder and diploma holder are different class, as they have different education qualification and as such, the action of the respondent, in including the degree holders Junior Engineers in the quota fixed for the Diploma holder engineers, is unreasonable. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is a specific quota of 8.33% for promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer for such Junior Engineer, who acquire an engineering degree or A.M.I.E. Section (A&B) in Electrical/ Mechanical/ Electronics/ Electronics and communication Engineering during the service period in the Power Transmission Corporation Uttarakhand Ltd. He argued that the intention of such quota was only to encourage the Junior Engineer to improve and update their technical knowledge, so that they can discharge their duties with more efficiency and expertise. 9. The principal contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that matter was heard summarily and was dismissed even without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner. He contends that main ground is that degree holder candidates appointed as junior engineer and junior engineers having diploma and acquiring A.M.I.E. Section (A&B) during service are separate class and, as such, resolution passed by the Board is bad in law. According to him, apart from this ground, there are many grounds, which could be seen before disposal of writ petition. 10. We find force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. If writ petition is dismissed at threshold, the court is required at least to give reason for such dismissal touching the case of the party. We have already quoted the whole judgment and we find that no reason has been given for dismissing the writ petition. Even same does not speaks about the controversy involved in the writ petition. Judgment is bereft of facts, reasons and law relating thereto. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Narinder Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 33 , has held that non-consideration of all point raised by the party is not permissible course. Paragraph 7 of the judgment is referred below: “7. A bare reading of the High Court’s order shows that it did not consider the various stands of the appellants. State of Haryana and others, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 33 , has held that non-consideration of all point raised by the party is not permissible course. Paragraph 7 of the judgment is referred below: “7. A bare reading of the High Court’s order shows that it did not consider the various stands of the appellants. It also did not mention that no other point except that relating to Rule 3.8 of the Manual was pressed into service. Had it been so, the grievance of the appellants would have been without any basis. But the High Court did not even refer to the various stands taken by the appellants. It was open to the High Court to discard the plea but to restrict consideration to one point and not to others was certainly not a permissible course. It may be, as contended by learned counsel for the State, that different pleas as raised are without any substance. But that should have been clearly indicated in the impugned order. That having not done so, we set aside the order of the High Court and remand the case to it for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. Since the counter-affidavit has not been filed by the respondents before the High Court, let them do so within a period of four weeks. Since the matter is of some urgency the High Court is requested to decide the writ application as early as possible, preferably by the end of December 2006. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion so far as acceptability or otherwise of the stands taken by Writ Petitioners 1 and 2 and/or the acceptability of various stands as noted above taken by the present appellants.” In paragraph 9 of the judgment given in the case of Adarsh Sabzi Mandi Samiti and others Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 725 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that limine dismissal by an unreasoned order is clearly unsupportable and is liable to be dismissed. Same is quoted below: “9. We have carefully perused the order of the revisional authority. The revisional authority has discussed in detail the case of the parties claiming allotment of the land in question. On a bare perusal of the order it is clear that the claims set up by the rival claimants are interlinked. Same is quoted below: “9. We have carefully perused the order of the revisional authority. The revisional authority has discussed in detail the case of the parties claiming allotment of the land in question. On a bare perusal of the order it is clear that the claims set up by the rival claimants are interlinked. Therefore, it is apt and proper that all the writ petitions filed against the revisional order of the Financial Commissioner dated 31-8-1990 should be heard together and disposed of on merit. We may add here that Appellants 3 to 183 are amongst the three hundred seven allottees who sought allotment of land as landless persons earning their livelihood by selling vegetables and they have been using the land in question since long. It hardly needs any emphasis that such a case deserves closer scrutiny by the High Court and not in limine dismissal by an unreasoned order as has been done in the case. The order is clearly unsupportable and has to be set aside. Since the case will be considered by the High Court on merit we refrain from making any observation on the merits of the case of the parties.” Similar is the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 12 of the judgment given in the case of State of Uttaranchal and another Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi, reported in (2008) 11 SCC 205 . Same is placed below: “12. In the light of the factual details particularly with reference to the stand taken by the Horticulture Department at length in the writ petition and in the light of the principles enunciated by this Court, namely, right to reason is an indispensable part of sound judicial system and reflect the application of mind on the part of the court, we are satisfied that the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained.” 12. In view of above discussion, the judgment passed by Hon’ble Single Judge is set aside. The matter is remanded back for fresh hearing. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion about the merit of the case. It will be open for the appellant to move appropriate application before the learned Single Judge for early hearing of the case. 13. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.