Punjab State Electricity Boardpatiala & Anr. vs Sawinder Singh
- AIRAIR 1996 SC 3196
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a court of higher authority has laid down the applicable legal principles governing a matter—such as the criteria for promotion in a statutory body—a lower court's direction to reconsider a candidate's eligibility must be understood as requiring the reconsideration to be conducted in accordance with those principles as declared by the higher court, and not in a manner that conflicts with or ignores them. When the petitioner contends that the lower court's direction is incompatible with the legal framework established by the Supreme Court, the proper remedy is to remit the matter to the authority to reconsider it afresh in light of the correct legal principles, rather than to enforce a direction that may have been formulated before those principles were clarified.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
In Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & Anr. vs. Ravinder Kumar Sharma [(1987) (1) SCR 72], the quota system for promotion was held to be bad in law. Consequently, the Electricity Board by its order dated November 14, 1986 extended the principle of seniority-cum-merit as the principle which was reiterated by this Court in C.A..7792/95 @ SLP (C) No.22179/94 titled Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. vs. Harvinder Singh dated August 24, 1995.
The petitioners were directed to consider the case of the respondent for promotion as on November 14, 1986. In this Special Leave Petition arising out of RSA No.2415/94, the High Court summarily dismissed the second appeal upholding the order of the appellate Court. The appellate Court in its judgment and decree dated February 23, 1994 modified the triai Court decree and stated that the defendants-appellants should consider the case of the plaintiff for promotion as on the date it was due and it is for the competent authority to take all the relevant factors into consideration and to decide as to whether the plaintiff was entitled for promotion. Further direction was given to dispose it of within the specified time with which we are not concerned.
It is contended by Mr. Sodhi, learned counsel for the petitioners that the date, as envisaged in the judgment, is not relevant as it was structurally altered by judgment of this Court and due to the decision taken by the Board on November 14, 1986 doing away with the quota system and introducing the principle of seniority-cum-merit as the criteria to be considered for promotion of the candidates like the respondent. The direction given by the appellate Court and confirmed by the High Court, therefore, is not in conformity with the law laid down by this Court. We find that the construction put up by the Board does not appear to be correct. The appellate Court merely directed to follow the relevant principles and consider whether the respondent would be eligible or not as on the day when it was due to him. In the light of the law laid down by this Court, it is open to the petitioners to consider the case in accordance with the rules and to pass appropriate order, Therefore, we do not think it is a case warranting further expression of any opinion on the matter as law has already been laid down by this Court.
The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free