# KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD v. GULAM MOHIUDDIN

- **Citation:** [1977] 3 S.C.R. 508
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1977-04-12
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 144 of 1977
- **Bench:** M. H. Beg, A. C. Gupta, P. S. Kailasam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/karnataka-electricity-board-v-gulam-mohiuddin-7184
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948-Sec. 79-Statutory Regulations-Whether
can be overriden by ad1ninistrative resolutions-Mysore State Electricity Board
Recruitment and Pro1notion of employees of the Board Regulation.t 1960Passing of SAS exa1nination if necessary for pron1otion.
The respondent was serving as an Accountant in the Electricity Departrnent
of the former State of Hyderabad. On the reorganisation of the States in
pursuance of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, he was allotted to the new
State of Mysore with effect from 1st November, 1956.
Option was given to
the respondent to continue in the Government service or to opt to the Board.
On 1st October, 1957, the respondent opted to the service under the Board. and
ceased to be an employee of the Government with effect from that date. In
1960, the Board framed Recruitment and Promotion Regulation in exercise .of
its powers conferred under s. 79(c) of the Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1948.
The regulations were subsequently amended on 16.12.1966. The amended
regulations prescribed that the posts of Accounts Superintendents were to be
filled on the basis of seniority-cum-merit on their having passed SAS examinatioa. In December, 1966, some persons junior to the respondent vtere promoted
on their having passed the SAS examination, while promotion- _was denied to
the respondent as h~ had not passed the examination. After the respondent;s
representations were rejected he filed a Writ Petition. The Single Judge dismissed the Petition. The Divis:on Bench refus""d to throw out the Writ Petition
on the ground of delay. It found on consideration of the two resolutions of
the Board one dated 19.5.1969 and another dated 5.1.1970 that the respondent
being an allottec was exempted from complying with the requiren1ents of passing the examination.
Allowing the appeal.
HELD : (1) The Division Bench rightly refused to deny relief to the
respondent on the ground of delay and !aches. [510 Bl
<2) Section 79 of the Act empowers the Board to make regulations not
iriconsistent .with the Act and rules made thereunder to provide for a11 or any·
of the matters referred to in els. (a) to (k) of the section. Sub-s. (c) en1powers
the Board to make regulations regarding the duties of officers and servants of
the Board and their salaries, allowances and other conditions of service.
By
virtue of the said powers the Board framed Mysore State Electricity Board
Recruitment and Promotion of Employees of the Board Regulations, 1960. The
minimum qualification prescribed is passing of SAS examination. The resolu·
tion of the Board dated 19.5.69 n1erely provides that the candidates appointed
to the Government Board services for the first time after 1st November, 1956,
must pass the department examinat:on for purnoses of earninJ? increments and
promotion. The said resolution does not deal with cases of allottees. It is
silent about allottees and, therefore, it is not pos:;dble to infer from that resolution that the allottees were exempted from passing the departmental examina·
tion. In any case, the passing of the resolution
cannot have the effect of
relaxing statutory regulations. Anart from that bv the subsequent resolution
of 1970, the Board made it absolutely clear that the SAS examination had to
be passed. [510 C-D, G-H, 511 E-F]

## Text

A
c
D
E
F
G
508
KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD
v.
GULAM MOHIUDDIN
April 12, 1977
[M. H. BEG, C.J., A. C. GUPTA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.]
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948-Sec. 79-Statutory Regulations-Whether
can be overriden by ad1ninistrative resolutions-Mysore State Electricity Board
Recruitment and Pro1notion of employees of the Board Regulation.t 1960Passing of SAS exa1nination if necessary for pron1otion.
The respondent was serving as an Accountant in the Electricity Departrnent
of the former State of Hyderabad. On the reorganisation of the States in
pursuance of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, he was allotted to the new
State of Mysore with effect from 1st November, 1956.
Option was given to
the respondent to continue in the Government service or to opt to the Board.
On 1st October, 1957, the respondent opted to the service under the Board. and
ceased to be an employee of the Government with effect from that date. In
1960, the Board framed Recruitment and Promotion Regulation in exercise .of
its powers conferred under s. 79(c) of the Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1948.
The regulations were subsequently amended on 16.12.1966. The amended
regulations prescribed that the posts of Accounts Superintendents were to be
filled on the basis of seniority-cum-merit on their having passed SAS examinatioa. In December, 1966, some persons junior to the respondent vtere promoted
on their having passed the SAS examination, while promotion- _was denied to
the respondent as h~ had not passed the examination. After the respondent;s
representations were rejected he filed a Writ Petition. The Single Judge dismissed the Petition. The Divis:on Bench refus""d to throw out the Writ Petition
on the ground of delay. It found on consideration of the two resolutions of
the Board one dated 19.5.1969 and another dated 5.1.1970 that the respondent
being an allottec was exempted from complying with the requiren1ents of passing the examination.
Allowing the appeal.
HELD : (1) The Division Bench rightly refused to deny relief to the
respondent on the ground of delay and !aches. [510 Bl
<2) Section 79 of the Act empowers the Board to make regulations not
iriconsistent .with the Act and rules made thereunder to provide for a11 or any·
of the matters referred to in els. (a) to (k) of the section. Sub-s. (c) en1powers
the Board to make regulations regarding the duties of officers and servants of
the Board and their salaries, allowances and other conditions of service.
By
virtue of the said powers the Board framed Mysore State Electricity Board
Recruitment and Promotion of Employees of the Board Regulations, 1960. The
minimum qualification prescribed is passing of SAS examination. The resolu·
tion of the Board dated 19.5.69 n1erely provides that the candidates appointed
to the Government Board services for the first time after 1st November, 1956,
must pass the department examinat:on for purnoses of earninJ? increments and
promotion. The said resolution does not deal with cases of allottees. It is
silent about allottees and, therefore, it is not pos:;dble to infer from that resolution that the allottees were exempted from passing the departmental examina·
tion. In any case, the passing of the resolution
cannot have the effect of
relaxing statutory regulations. Anart from that bv the subsequent resolution
of 1970, the Board made it absolutely clear that the SAS examination had to
be passed. [510 C-D, G-H, 511 E-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 144 of 1977.
,\:-meal by Soecial leave from the Jnd!!111ent and Order dated the
2nd Januory, 1976 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No430 of 1974.
·
• .. t.
...
•
KARNATAKA ELF.CT. BOARD v. G. MOHIUDDIN (Kai/asam, J . .)
509
V. N. Satyqnarayana,
K. Rajendra Chowdhary and Veena Devi
A
(Mrs.) Khanna for the Appellant.
S.S. Javali, B. P. Singh and A. K. Srivastava, for Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KA!LASAM, J .-This appeal is by the Karnataka Electricity Board
B
by its Secretary by Special leave granted by this
Court against the
judgment of the Karnataka Higb Court allowing the writ petition filed
by the respondent and issuing a writ of mandamus to the appellant to
consider the case of the respondent for promotion as an Accounts
Superintendent as on 30th December, 1966, and to promote him to
that post with effect from that date.
.
The respondent was serving as an ·Accountant, Grade II, in the
Electricity Department ·of the former State of Hyderabad.
On the
reorganisation of the States in pursuance of the States Reorganisation
Act, 1956, he was allotted to the l\ew State of Mysore (now Karnataka)
with effect from !st November, 1956. The post which he held came
c
to be equated with tha't ofl I Division Clerk in the former State of
Mysore.
On !st October, 1957, the Mysore State Electricity Board
now Karnataka State Electricity Board was constlfuted under the Indian
Electricity (Supply) Act. An option was given to the respondent to
continue in the. Government service or fo opt to the Board. On 1st
October, 1957, the respondent opted to the service under the Boar<!
and ceased to be an employee of the Government with effect from that
dafo.
D
In the year 1960 the Board framed Recruitment and Promotions
Regulations in the exercise of its powers conferred on it under section
79 ( c) of the Act.
The Regulations were subsequently amended on
16th December, 1966. The amended Rules prescribe\! that the posts
of Accounts Superintendents were to be filled by promotion
of I
Division Clerks on the basis of seniority-cum-merit on their having
passed Part I and II of the S.A.S. examination.
·
On 30th December, 1966, some persons junior to the respondent
were promoted on their having passed the S.A.S. examination while
promotion was denied to the respondent as be had not passed the
examination.
The respondent made several representations one such
representation being on 24th December, 1970 .. On 21st November,
1972, the respondent's representations were rejected. The respondent
thereafter filed a writ petition before the High Court on 13th February,
l973. The learned Single Judge who heard the petition dismissed it
and the respondent preferred an appeal to a Bench of the Karnataka
High Court. On behalf of the appellant, Karnataka Electricity Board,
it was contended before the court that the writ petition ought to be
dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and !aches .. on the part of
the respondent and also on the ground that in view of the later Resolution of the Board drrted 5th January, 1970, it was no longer open to
the respondent to rely on the Resolution dated 19th May, 1969. The
Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that the writ petition cannot
6-502SCI/77
E
F
G
H
510
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 3 s.c.R.
A
be thrown out on the ground of delay. On a consideration of the two
Resolutions of the Board, namely thiit of 19th May, 1969 and 5th
January, 1970, it found that the respondent as an allottee wa·s exempted
from complying with the requirements of passing the examination and
therefore allowed the writ petition.
1--
We do not see any ground for not accepting the view of the lligh
·..-
~ Court that in the circumstances of the case the relief to the respondent
should not be denied on the ground of delay and !aches.
The only ground therefore on which the order of the High Court
was challeng~d. by the appellant is that the court was in error in con~
truing the relevant provisions of the Regulations and the Resolutions
and holding that the res.1JOndent is exempted from passing the S.A.S.
C
examination before qualifying for the promotion.
Before referring to
the two Resolutions the relevant provisions of the law and Regulations
made thereunder may be referred to.
The Electricity (Supply) Act,
1948, by section 79 empowers the Board to make Regulations not
inconsistent with the Act and the rules made thereunder to provide for
all or any of the matters referred to in clauses (a) to (k) of the section.
Sub-clause ( c) empowers the Board to make Regulations regarding
D
the duties of officers and servants of the Board and their salaries, allowances and other conditions of service. By virtue of the powers conferred
on the Board it framed Mysore State Electricity Board Recmitment
and Promotion of Employees of the Board Regulation, 1960.
The
method of recruitment prescribed for promotion to Accounts Superintendents is prescribed in Chapter V of Annexure-2.
The method of
recruitment is by promotion from the cadre of I Grade Clerks on the
E
basis of seniority'cum-merit.
The minimum qu~lification prescribed
is that the candidate ought to have passed S.A.S. examination Part I
and Part IL
This provision which was enacted in 1960 continued to
be in force <luring the relevant time. If this Regulation is applicable,
the respondent's plea has to be rejected a·s it is incumbent Ont him to
pass the S.A.S. examination.
The Resolution of the Board relied on
F
by the respondent is 19th May, 1969 and the material paragraph runs
as follows :-
G
H
"It is hereby directed that the candidates appointed to
Government/Board Service for the first time after the date of
States Re-organisation i.e., !st November 1956 (as they are
not allottees) should pass the Departmental Examination's
and Kannada Language Tests for purposes of earning increments and for promotion."
The Resolution requires the passing of the examination and Kannada
language test for the purpose of earning increments and for promotion
for candidates appointed after !st November, 1956. But as it is not
made applicable to the allottces, it is contended that the allottees are
bv implication exempted from passing the Departmental Examination
and Kannada language test.
This contention cannot be accepted for
the Resolution is silent regarding the allottees and is not made applicable fo them. It is not possible to infer from the Resolution that the
KARNATAKA ELECT. BOARD v. G. MOH!UDDIN (Kailasam, !.) 511
allottees are exempted from passing the Departmental Examination
A
and the Kannada language test.
fhe Resolution was passed by the
Board in pursuance of certain proceedings of the Government referred
to in the Resolution itself.
Paragraph 2 of the Resolution reads
thus:
"Approval is accorded for the adoption of the Government
Order Nos. (1) GAD 123 SSH 66 dated 21-11-1966 (2)
GAD 2 SSR 67 dated 3-8-1967 and (3) GAD 72 SSR 67
dated 20-7-1968."
The three Gove=ent orders referred to in the Resolution relate to
the requirement of passing of the Departmental Examination and Kanuada language test as a consequence of the judgment of the High Couri
B
of Mysore and the Supreme Court. The orders specifically states that
C
unless in the Recruitment Rules relating to the service concerned Departmental Examination had been incorporated and pre_scribed and
unless it is clearly specified for what purpose the tests are prescribed
_ __......,.
viz., whether for increments or promotions, the· passing of Departmental tests cannot be legally insisted upon for grant of increments
or for according promotion to higher posts.
The three Government
orders make it clear that the relaxation of the rule relating to passing
D
of the Departmental Examinations and Kannada language test is only
as regards services where the rules do not specifically require the passing
of the examinations and the language test. These G.O.s do not apply
in the present case as the Regulations framed by the Board under
section 79(c) specifically prescribe the passing of the S.A.S. test.
We
are unable to construe the Resolution dated 19th May, 1969 as exempting the alloftees from passing the test. In any event the plea of the
E
respondent will have to fail on the gronnd that the Regulations framed
under section 79 ( c) of the Board requiring the passing of the examination was not relaxed by amending the Regulations. The passing of
!he Resolution by the Board cannot have the effect of modifying a
Regulation which was passed by the Board in the exercise of the powers
conferred by the statute. Apart from this circumstance by a subsequent Resolution the Board itself considered the question in all its
F
aspects and resolved that passing of the S.A.S. examination for promotion to the cadre of Accounts Superintendents as before be insisted.
Whatever might have been the purport of the Resolution dated 19th
May, 1969, the Board by a subsequent Resolution had resolved on
insisting on the passing of the examination.
The High Court found
that the later Resolution did not affect the earlier Resolution on the
ground that the ·subsequent Resolution did not make any reference
to the earlier Resolution and that there is no reference to the allottees
G
at all.
Relying on the words "the passing of the S.A.S. Examination
for promotion to the cadre of Accounts Superintendents as before be
insisted" the court found thaf it would mean that where the passin~
of the S.A.S. Examination was insisted prior to that Resolution the
game 'shall continue to be insisted in future also, and if passing of the
S.A.S. Examination was nai insisted prior to that Resolution in the
case of allottees for promotion to the cadre of Accounts SuperintenH
dents.
The Resolution dated 5th January, 1970, cannot be understood
as altering the position existing "as before".
This reasoning
is
512
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1977) 3 S.C.!l.
A
erroneous for, as pointed out by us the earlier Resolution was not
intended to cover the case of allottees and merely because the allotte<:s
were excluded from the operation of the Resolution the inference that
the allottees were exempted from the passing of the examination is not
justified.
Further before the Resolution there is nothing to indicate
that the allottees were not required to pass the examinatio11. The conclusion of the High Court cannot be upheld as the binding nature of
B the Regulations passed by the Board under section 79 ( c) has not
been taken due note of.
This is the view taken by the Single Judge
of the High Court.
In the result we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the
lower appellate court and restore that of the Single Judge. There will
be no order as to costs.
P.H.P.
Appeal allowed.
'r