Back
1967 Supreme(Bom) 46
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(N.L. Abhyankar and D.G. Palekar JJ.)
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION, Nagpur through its Chairman and others …. Petitioners
Versus
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, through the Secretary and another -Respondents
Advocates appeared
For petitioners-G. S. Dharmadhikari, M. N. Phadke, M. W. Puranik and V. M. Golvalkar.
For respondent No. 1 - S. M. Hajarnavis, Addl. Govt. Pleader.
For respondent No.2-B. A. Masodkar.
Headnote:
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ACT - Recruitment Regulations - Whether the Maharashtra State Electricity Board is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution - Whether the Board has the power to relax the condition of minimum experience prescribed for a post - Whether the petitioners have been denied equal opportunity to compete for the post - Held, the Board is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution - The Board does not have the power to relax the condition of minimum experience prescribed for a post - The petitioners have been denied equal opportunity to compete for the post.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, an association of engineers employed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB), and two individual engineers, challenged the appointment of the second respondent as an Executive Engineer on the ground that it violated the terms and conditions of the appointment as advertised and that the petitioners were denied a fair, equal, and reasonable opportunity to compete for the post.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the MSEB is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and is bound by the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. The court further held that the Board does not have the power to relax the condition of minimum experience prescribed for a post and that the petitioners have been denied equal opportunity to compete for the post.
Issues: 1. Whether the MSEB is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the Board has the power to relax the condition of minimum experience prescribed for a post? 3. Whether the petitioners have been denied equal opportunity to compete for the post?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the MSEB is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution because it is a statutory corporation constituted under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, and has been invested with certain public functions and has to discharge them as a public authority in matters connected with the generation and supply of electricity. 2. The court held that the Board does not have the power to relax the condition of minimum experience prescribed for a post because Regulation 8 of the Recruitment Regulations empowers only the Board to modify the minimum qualifications and experience required for various categories of posts, and Regulation 21, which empowers the Selection Committee to recommend relaxation of qualifications, does not apply to the condition of minimum experience. 3. The court held that the petitioners have been denied equal opportunity to compete for the post because the advertisement calling for applications did not indicate that the minimum qualifications and experience were liable to relaxation or condonation, and therefore, departmental candidates like the petitioners were prevented from applying.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the appointment of the second respondent was quashed. The court directed the Board to re-advertise the post in the light of the observations made in the judgment.
ABRYANKAR J. - By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioners pray that the order dated 11th May 1966 appointing the second respondent Shri S. S. Ghisad, as an Executive Engineer, be quashed, and that the second respondent be restrained from acting as Executive Engineer of the first respondent. Petitioner No. 1 is an association of Engineers employed by the first respondent i. e. the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. The second and the third petitioners are employees of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board and also members of the Association. The first respondent, the Maharashtra State Electricity Board is a statutory corporation constituted under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (Central Act No. 54 of 1948). The first respondent issued an advertisement in newspapers, inviting applications for the post of Executive Engineers (E and M) in the Board. Annexure A to the petition is a copy of that advertisement. The advertisement was in respect of several posts to be filled including that of Executive Engineers (E and M). Applications were to be made on or before 10th December 1965. In the advertisement calling applications for the post of Executive Engineers, the qualifications and the requirements of experience as well as conditions of age limit have been given. For the post of Executive Engineer, E and M, the following conditions and requirements of the candidates were advertised:-
"81. Name of the post Qualifications.
No. and pay soale.
Experienoe.
Age limit.
1.
Exeoutive Engineer (E and M) Rs.500-50-800EB-50-1,100.
Degree in Eleotrioal or Meohanioal Engineering of an Indian or Foreign Univerdity or its equivalent.
Experienoe in Eleotrioal Engineering for 7 years out ofwhich 3 years should have been in a position of responsibility oonneoted with:-
i.Design, ereotion and maintenance of transmission and distribution systems.
or
ii. Design, oonstruotion and for operation and maintenance of Hydro or Thermal Station.
40 years.
•
r
.
-
i-
\
--
-
1967 Mh.L.J. ] M. S. E. B. ENG. Asso., NAG. v. MAR. STATE E. BOARD 785
"Sr. Name of the post Qualification.
No. and pay scale.
Experience.
Age limit.
or
iii. Commercial activities like load survey, tariff calculations, Power Sales and development etc."
Table on page no. 784
2. Petitioner No.2 Shri R. C. Gupta has been serving with the respondent No. 1Board since about 7 years as a Deputy Executive Engineer, Testing Division. Petitioner No.3 Shri S. P. Shinde, who is a graduate in Engineering (Electrical) from Usmania University, was appointed as a Junior Engineer with the Board in 1961 and has since been promoted and was serving as an Assistant Engineer when the advertisement was issued. Petitioner No. 2 Shri R. C. Gupta had made an application for being considered for the post of Executive Engineer advertised by the Board; apparently, he sent his application through his superior officers as he was already serving in the department with respondent No.1 Board. Petitioner No. 2 was not called for interview, nor was any intimation given to him about his application. The third petitioner Shri Shinde did not apply at all, but according to Shri Shinde he did not make any application for the post as he had only 5 years experience to his credit, whereas the minimum period of experience as per advertisement was not less than 7 years. He has also alleged that in view of the specific regulations by which the recruitment is governed, he did not consider himself eligible to make the application because of the condition of minimum experience.
3. It appears that the second respondent Shri Ghisad received an appointment order some time in May 1966, appointing him as an Executive Engineer on probation, for a period of two years. The actual order issued under the signature of the Secretary of the Board is Annexure C to the petition. Now, ~he grievance of the petitioners is that the second respondent, has been appointed to one of the posts of Executive Engineers in p
