R.C. Nanda and Others, Joginder Singh and Others and Balwant Rai Gupta and Others vs Punjab State Electricity Board and Others

K. Kannan, J.—All the three writ petitions address the same issue of the validity of rule in the Electricity Board that provided for a quota for diploma holders and non-diploma holders for promotion to junior engineer''s post from the post of Test Inspector. The petitioner had claimed that the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and Another Vs. Ravinder Kumar Sharma and Others, must be followed. At the time of admission this Court had directed the case to be taken up after the disposal of the case in The Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and Anr. v. Ashok Kumar Sehgal and Ors. in LPA No. 402 of 1988. It appears that the judgment had been pronounced in the year 1989 but this case has come up for hearing only now.

The issue regarding the validity of fixation of quota with the criterion of educational qualification was dealt with by a Constitution Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in The State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Shri Triloki Nath Khosa and Others, . This decision was cited by the three member Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in P. Murugesan and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, that expressly overruled its earlier decision in Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and Another Vs. Ravinder Kumar Sharma and Others, . The three member Bench in Murugesan''s case (supra) held that after the decision of the Constitution Bench the issue of providing for a quota to a higher post on the basis of higher educational qualification could not be said to be arbitrary and therefore held that the decision in Ravinder Kumar Sharma''s case (supra) which did not refer to the Constitution Bench decision was not correctly decided.

All the above decisions had been dealt with in a more recent judgment in Kuldeep Kumar Gupta v. HPSEB (2001) 1 SCC 475 that held that a quota between diploma holders and non-diploma holders for a higher post was perfectly tenable and rejected the plea that it was arbitrary and contrary to rule of reservation under the constitutional scheme.

In view of the law cited above, the petitioner''s claim shall stand rejected. All the writ petitions are dismissed.