Punjab-Haryana High Court
P.S.E.B vs Sudarshan Lal on 20 December, 2023
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163999
2023:PHHC:163999
105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-744-1995 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20.12.2023
Punjab State Electricity Board
....Appellant
Versus
Sudarshan Lal
..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:- Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. Manjinder Singh Saini, Advocate for the
respondent
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
1. In this Regular Second Appeal, the defendant (the
Punjab State Electricity Board) assails the correctness of the
judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. The
plaintiff(respondent) filed a suit for the grant of decree of
declaration that he is entitled to be promoted as a Sub Station
Operator (now Junior Engineer-II) on the basis of seniority. In
substance, he claims that he holds a Matriculate certificate
alongwith ITI certificate and, therefore, he is entitled to be
considered for promotion as a Sub Station Operator. The defendant,
while contesting the suit, claims that the plaintiff is not entitled to be
considered for promotion as he does not possess matriculation
certificate with English Core and Mathematics subjects. The trial
court dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court reversed the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on the ground that the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163999
RSA-744-1995 (O&M) 2 2023:PHHC:163999
respondent was appointed as a Sub Station Attendant on the basis of
the same qualification and, therefore, he cannot be ignored from
promotion as there is a deemed relaxation of the qualification.
Moreover, the First Appellate Court held that Sh.Baldev Singh and
Sh. Gulshan Rai, Sub Station Attendants, had also not passed the
minimum qualification as required for the post and they have also
been promoted.
2. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at
length and with their able assistance perused the paper book. They
have also filed their written synopsis.
3. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that
though the respondent has passed the matriculation examination,
however, he has not passed the same with the subject English Core.
He submits that for appointment, by way of promotion to the post of
Sub Station Operator, Matriculation certificate with English Core
and Mathematics is the necessary qualification, which the
respondent does not possess. He further submits that the
qualification of the respondent was never relaxed.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the
respondent submits that the respondent has been appointed as a Sub
Station Attendant and, therefore, he cannot be denied consideration
for promotion on account of the qualification only.
5. It is evident that Sub Station Operator is the higher post
in hierarchy than the Sub Station Attendant. The minimum
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163999
RSA-744-1995 (O&M) 3 2023:PHHC:163999
qualification for the post of Sub Station Attendant is Matriculation,
whereas for Sub Station Operator, the minimum qualification is
Matriculation ceriticate with English Core and Mathematics as
subjects. Admittedly, the respondent does not possess the
qualification required for the post of Sub Station Operation.
Evidently, the First Appellate Court has erred in observing that the
qualification was relaxed in the case of the respondent. There is no
question of relaxation as the respondent was appointed as a Sub
Station Attendant, for which the minimum qualification was only a
matriculation certificate.
6. Similarly, the second reason given by the First
Appellate Court is also incorrect as the learned counsel representing
the appellant submits that Sh. Baldev Singh and Sh.Gulshan Rai,
subsequently passed the English Core examination and thereafter,
they were promoted.
7. Learned counsel representing the respondent failed to
controvert the aforesaid fact.
8. With reference to the argument of the learned counsel
representing the respondent, it may be noted that the employer is
well within his jurisdiction to prescribe a higher qualification for the
promotional post. The respondent cannot claim entitlement to
promotion merely on the basis of seniority, particularly when he
does not possess the minimum qualification for the post to which he
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163999
RSA-744-1995 (O&M) 4 2023:PHHC:163999
wants to get promoted. Consequently, the judgment of the First
Appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored.
9. The appeal stands allowed.
10. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are
also disposed of.
20.12.2023 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163999
4 of 4
