The main legal point established in the judgment is that discrimination in promotion based on educational qualifications is unjustified and discriminatory.

JUDGMENT:

S.B. SINHA, J.

1.Leave granted.

2.This Appeal is directed against the judgment and Order dated 31.3.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 4871/2003 dismissing an appeal arising from a judgment and order dated 24.4.2003 of the learned A.D.J., Patiala setting aside the judgment and order of the trial judge dated 7.2.2001.

3.The basic facts of the case are not in dispute. Appellant was appointed as a lineman on 8.8.1964. He was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer on 15.3.1974. He was not a diploma holder. Respondent Board which is constituted in terms of Section 15 of the The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and incorporated under Section 12 thereof provided for scale of pay on the basis of the qualifications held by the incumbents. One Ravinder Kumar who was a non-diploma holder filed a suit questioning the purported discrimination in promotion of Lineman to Line Superintendent between diploma holder linemen vis.-`-vis. non diploma holder linemen.

4.The matter came up before this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3341 and 3342 of 1983, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & Anr. etc. v Ravinder Kumar Sharma and Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 367 wherein this Court held:-

"8. The only issue raised in this appeal is whether defendant 1, that is, the Punjab State Electricity Board, is competent to discriminate between diploma holders and non-diploma holders Line Men forming the common cadre of Line Men having a common seniority list in promoting these line men on the basis of quota fixed by the order of the State Electricity Board even though the requisite qualification for promotion for Line Man to the post of Line Superintendent is either the holding of diploma or certificate for electrical engineering from a recognised institute or the non-diploma holders having passed one and half years course in the trade of Electrician/Line Man/ Wire Man from recognised Industrial Training Institute and are matriculates and have worked for four years as Line Man continuously and immediately before promotion, as has been provided by the office order No. 97/ENG/BET/G-33 dated 22-10-1968."

5.The only issue which was raised before this Court was as to whether, the Punjab State Electricity Board could make any discrimination for the purpose of promotion between diploma holder and non-diploma holders on the basis of quota fixed by the Order of the State Electricity Board even though the requisite qualification for promotion from line man to the line superintendent is either the holding of the Diploma or Certificate of Electrical Engineering from a recognized institute or having passed 1= year

course in Electrical Trades of Electrician/Lineman/Wireman.

6.The claim of Ravinder Kumar was based on a circular letter issued by the respondent Board which was considered by this Court in the said decision in the following terms:-

"11.This observation applies with full force to the present case, and it has been rightly held by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana that the promotion of defendants 3 to 7 who are junior to the plaintiff-respondent from Line Man to the post of Line Superintendent is wholly bad and discriminatory and directed that the petitioner be deemed to have been promoted to the post of Line Superintendent from the date the said defendants 3 to 7 had been promoted from Line Man to Line Superintendent. In our considered opinion there is no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court affirming the judgment and decree of the Courts below and we agree with the reasonings and conclusions arrived at by the Courts below. The two appeals on special leave are, therefore, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5000/- to be paid by the appellant of C.A. No. 3341 of 1983 to respondent 1."

7.We may, however, notice that the matter came up before a three judges Bench of this Court in P. Murugesan & Ors. v State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [(1993) 2 SCC 340] wherein Ravinder Kumar (su