Pseb Patiala v. Jit Singh


  
  
   

!"# #$%&%'(    )'*!+"!"#,#$"-%$%". !-/!'/!'"0#- 11#,,!'"& 2#-&)&

%"%'30 
#&1'/#'"

 

 

  
 





 

       

  

 

   !





 

" #$ %&%    



 

& #& %%) 

   



  )

 + 

 

   

,' -  . 



"#$%

& & ()* "   (

+

,) -# 

* ./01!



1.3*

 

' 

+ 

    



 +   '

,) -# 4 &



 ' -  .    

+

(6  )#

* %%$1 ) -..

$2# + %   

 + "19.

The learned counsel for respondents relied upon the decision in Punjab State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Ravinder Kumar Sharma and Ors., [1987] 1 SCR 72, a decision rendered by a Bench comprising A.P. Sen and B.C. Ray, JJ. the category of line-men in the service of the Punjab State Electricity Board comprised both diploma- holders and others who may be referred to as non-diploma- holders. They constituted one single category having a common seniority list. By means of the Rules issued under the proviso to Article 309, a quota was prescribed for diploma-holders, the result of which was that diploma- holders who were far junior to the non-diploma-holders were promoted ignoring the non-diploma-holders. The rule was held to be bad by the learned Subordinate Judge, Patiala.

On appeal, the Additional District Judge, Patiala affirmed the judgment. It was affirmed by the High Court as well. The matter was brought to this Court. This court affirmed the judgment of the High Court. A persual of the judgment shows that the attention of the Bench was not drawn either to TN. Khosa or to other decisions. Reference was made only to the observations in Shujat All quoted hereinbefore and it was held that the distinction made between the diploma-holders and non-diplomaholders was discriminatory and bad. Apart from the distinction on facts between that case and the case before us, it is evident that non-consideration of the T.N. Khosa and other decisions relevant under the subject has led to the laying down of a proposition which seems to run counter to T.N. Khosa.

With great respect to the learned Judges who decided that case, we are unable to accept the broad proposition flowing from the case."

 +   '

   



  '

 ,' -  . 



3(



'  

,) -# 4 &

#5!*

 ,' -  . 

 




  

     

'

 



    



   ' (     '

6



8  

,' -  . 



,) -# 4 &

 

(

' 

+

    

'  

    ( '  



 ,' -  . 



#5!* (

%%$

'  

 (

%%$

' 



+

    



   '     

 &

'    

% 9 

'



   ' 

" #$ %&%

& #& %%)

 +  '   



   

#

 



 (  + 

   '  6  .  '        (

 ( 

     





(   

    

1-%,'/4