Deputation did not end promotion rights; a statutory electricity board was treated as State and bound by equality norms.
A temporary deputation did not sever the employee's lien or his entitlement to be considered for promotion when similarly placed employees were assessed, so the failure to include him was wrongful. The Rajasthan Electricity Board, being a statutory body with public duties, rule-making power and control over service conditions, fell within Article 12. Its promotion decisions were therefore subject to Articles 14 and 16, and denial of equal consideration offended the constitutional guarantee of equality of opportunity. The employee was entitled to be considered for promotion, with consequential seniority if found fit.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner, whose services had been placed at the disposal of the Electricity Board and who was temporarily deputed to another department, continued to retain a right to be considered for promotion under the Board; (ii) Whether the Electricity Board was an authority falling within the expression "State" in Article 12 so that its action in making promotions was subject to Articles 14 and 16.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner, whose services had been placed at the disposal of the Electricity Board and who was temporarily deputed to another department, continued to retain a right to be considered for promotion under the Board.
Analysis: The petitioner's deputation to the Public Works Department was temporary and his lien in the Power Department was expressly retained. The notification placing the services of the concerned departmental employees at the disposal of the Board required an option to be given before their service under the Board could cease, and no such option was afforded to the petitioner. The fact that he was serving on deputation elsewhere did not sever his connection with the Board, and he remained entitled to be considered for promotion when similarly placed personnel were considered.
Conclusion: The petitioner retained a right to be considered for promotion under the Board, and the failure to consider him was wrongful.
Issue (ii): Whether the Electricity Board was an authority falling within the expression "State" in Article 12 so that its action in making promotions was subject to Articles 14 and 16.
Analysis: The Board was constituted under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, was a statutory corporate body with extensive public powers and duties, could make regulations affecting service conditions, and performed functions of public character. The broad language of Article 12 was held wide enough to include such statutory authorities. Consequently, if the Board denied equal opportunity in promotions, the mandate of Article 16 was attracted.
Conclusion: The Electricity Board fell within Article 12, and its promotion decisions were subject to Articles 14 and 16.
Final Conclusion: The impugned promotion process violated the constitutional guarantee of equality of opportunity, and the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion with consequential seniority if found fit.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory public authority vested with public duties, rule-making power, and control over service conditions can be "State" under Article 12, and denial of consideration for promotion to a similarly placed employee violates Article 16.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
