SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(SC) 321

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.
Ramesh Prasad Singh, Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1825 of 1969
Decided on 4-11-1977.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. C. Agarwala and Mr. R. K. Garg, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. Sarjoo Prasad, Sr. Advocate (Mr. U. P. Singh, Advocate with him), for Respondent No. 2. Ex parte, Respondents 1 and 3-28.

Advocates:
R.K.GARG, S.C.AGRAWAL, SAJU PRASAD, Udaipratap Singh

Headnote:

Constitution of India – Article 226/ 14/ 16 - Appointment and promotion – Retired from service – Claim of compensation - Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and respondents 1 and 2 have vehemently urged that Tele-communication is a highly specialized subject quite distinct from that of general Electricity, that respondents 1 to 26 who were mere graduates of Science in Electrical Engineering were not qualified for the post of Executive Engineer and had no right to maintain the writ petition out of which the present appeal has arisen and that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, there was no question of any breach or violation of the guarantee of equality of opportunity contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as was contended by them. There is, in our opinion, considerable force in these submissions – Held, In the instant case, the qualifications required for the post of Executive Engineer (Tele-Communication) as demonstrably reflected in the proposal for creation of that post and the aforesaid recommendation of the Selection Committee setting out various factors which went in favor of promotion of appellant appear to be founded on reasonable classification having an intelligible differentia which distinguished the appellant from respondents 3 to 28 and the differentia had a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. It is, therefore, crystal clear that respondents 3 to 28 did not stand at par with the appellant and had not legal right which they could claim to have been denied to them by an authority which had a legal duty to do something. With all respect the High Court was in our judgment, therefore, not right in issuing the writ of mandamus. It would be useful in this context to refer to the following observations made by this Court - It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right - There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. (See Halsburys Laws of England, 4th Edition Volume 1, Paragraph 122; State of Haryana - In view of the foregoing, we are unable to hold on the material before us that the criterion employed by the concerned authority in promoting the appellant was arbitrary or capricious or was not intended to increase the efficiency in the functioning of the department or was based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations or suffered from any other vice. In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and uphold the aforesaid Notification No. SS/AI-103/68/2676/EB dated June 24, 1968 issued by the Board promoting the appellant as officiating temporary Executive Engineer (Tele-Communication). As respondents 3 to 28 have not appeared and contested the appeal, we make no order as to costs - Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT

JASWANT SINGH, J. :—This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Patna under Art. 133 (1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution is directed against the judgment and order dated May 13, 1969 of that court whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 460 of 1968 filed by respondents 3 to 28 herein was allowed, Notification no. SS/A1-103/68/2676/EB dated June 24, 1968 issued by the Bihar State Electricity Board, respondent No. 2, appointing the appellant as officiating temporary Executive Engineer (Tele-Communication), Tele-Communication Division, Patna, was quashed and a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 to fill up the post of the Executive Engineer (Tele-Communication) after considering the case of respondents 3 to 28 and specially of respondents 3 and 4 along with the case of the appellant or with the case of any other Assistant Engineer whose case in the opinion of the Board may be fit to be considered in the light of the said judgment was issued.

2. The circumstances giving rise to this appeal lie in a short compass. It appears that the appellant who passed the final examination of Bachelor of Science (Engineering) in Tele-Communication of the Ranchi University held in August, 1962 was appointed by the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) as Assistant Engineer (Tele-Communication) in September, 1963 on a salary of Rs. 245/- per month in the pay scale of Rs. 220 -25-320-EB-25-670-EB-30-750. A few weeks after his recruitment, the appellant was sent by the Board to the headquarters of Messrs. Brown Boveri and Company Limited, Baden, Switzerland for six months specialized training in power line carrier, telemetering and tele-control equipment in the modern power system. On his return from Switzerland and resumption by him of his duty as Assistant Engineer (Tele-Communication) the appellant was deputed to look after the entire tele-communication system of the Board. In June, 1968, the Board left the necessity of maintenance of efficient communication service between the vital centres of generation, utilization and administration for ensuring reliability and continuity in power supply which would facilitate quick supervision and checking of the then existing arrangements at the generating station, receiving sub-stations and distributing areas as also the necessity of proper supervision and handling by trained and qualified personnel of a large number of wave-change-over communication equipments on 33 KW Transmission line which had been installed in the Tele-Communication Sub-Division of the Board at Patna and were maintained and aligned with the help of special electronic instruments. Accordingly, the Board accorded sanction to the creation of a temporary Tele-Communication Division with headquarters at Patna as also to the creation of a temporary post of Executive Engineer (Tele-Communication) in the replacement scale of pay of Rs. 730-35-870-40-1070-EB-45-1250 for the said Tele-Communication Division with effect from June 22, 1968 to February 28, 1969. Acting on the recommendation of its expert selection committee to the effect that the appellant was fit to be promoted to the rank of the Executive Engineer (Tele-Communication) in view of the fact that he had a consistently good record of service, possessed the degree in Tele-Communication Engineering, had undergone special training in Switzerland in Tele-Communication, had ever since his return from Switzerland been satisfactorily performing the onerous and complex duties assigned to him and had been looking after the entire Tele-Communication system of the Board and had thus acquired a valuable practical experience in that field which was necessary to man the post of Executive Engineer (Tele-Communication) and that the Assistant Electrical Engineers of 1960 batch were being considered for promotion as Electrical Executive Engineers, the Board issued the aforesaid notification temporarily promoting the appellant to the po
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top