Court rules in favor of petitioner, entitled to promotion within Rajasthan State Electricity Board.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that despite being deputed to the Public Works Department, the petitioner remained an employee of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and was entitled to be considered for promotion within the Board. The court found that the Board's failure to consider the petitioner for promotion violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, guaranteeing equality of opportunity in public employment. Additionally, the court determined that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board falls within the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, thereby granting relief to the petitioner for promotion and seniority considerations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner ceased to be an employee of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board upon deputation to the Public Works Department.
2. Applicability of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board.
3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board.
4. Whether the Rajasthan State Electricity Board falls within the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the petitioner ceased to be an employee of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board upon deputation to the Public Works Department:

The court examined the petitioner's employment status and found that although the petitioner was temporarily deputed to the Public Works Department, his lien remained with the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. The court noted that the petitioner's services were initially placed at the disposal of the Board under a government notification dated 12th February 1958, and this status was not altered by his temporary deputation. The court held that the petitioner's connection with the Board did not cease merely due to his deputation and he retained his entitlement to be considered for promotion within the Board.

2. Applicability of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board:

The court rejected the respondent Board's contention that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution were inapplicable. It held that the failure to consider the petitioner for promotion violated Article 16, which guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment, including promotions. The court emphasized that the phrase "matters relating to employment or appointment to any office" under Article 16 includes promotions, citing General Manager Southern Railway v. Rangachari, AIR 1982 SC 36.

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board:

The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion to higher posts within the Board. It found that the petitioner's services, which were initially placed at the disposal of the Board, continued to be under the Board's control despite his temporary deputation. The court held that the Board's failure to consider the petitioner for promotion alongside his colleagues, who were junior to him, constituted a violation of Article 16 of the Constitution.

4. Whether the Rajasthan State Electricity Board falls within the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution:

The court held that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board falls within the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution. It reasoned that the Board, being a statutory body with extensive powers and duties, qualifies as a "public authority" created by statute and armed with regulatory powers. The court rejected the argument that the Board's corporate and autonomous nature excluded it from being considered "State" under Article 12. The court cited various cases to support its conclusion, including Bramadathan Nambooripad v. Cochin Devaswom Board AIR 1956 Trav-Co 19 (FB) and Sarangpani v. Port Trust of Madras, AIR 1961 Mad 234.

Conclusion:

The court allowed the petition, holding that the orders passed by the Board on 29th April 1961 and subsequent orders confirming respondents Nos. 4 to 14 were inoperative against the petitioner. It directed that the petitioner be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer for the selection made in 1961 and any subsequent selections, and if found fit, be assigned due seniority according to rules. The petitioner was ordered to bear his own costs due to the inexact and inartistic framing of the writ petition.

---