{"id":175877,"date":"1986-10-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1986-10-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986"},"modified":"2017-03-19T05:11:44","modified_gmt":"2017-03-18T23:41:44","slug":"punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986","title":{"rendered":"Punjab State Electricity … vs Ravinder Kumar Sharma & Ors., Etc on 27 October, 1986"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Punjab State Electricity … vs Ravinder Kumar Sharma & Ors., Etc on 27 October, 1986<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 367, \t\t 1987 SCR (1)\t 72<\/div>\n
Author: B Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: Ray, B.C. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,PATIALA & ANR. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAVINDER KUMAR SHARMA & ORS., ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT27\/10\/1986\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, B.C. (J)\nBENCH:\nRAY, B.C. (J)\nSEN, A.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR  367\t\t  1987 SCR  (1)\t 72\n 1986 SCC  (4) 617\t  JT 1986   743\n 1986 SCALE  (2)690\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1989 SC 307\t (5,8)\n\n\nACT:\n    Constitution  of  India, 1950--Articles 14\t&  16--State\nElectricity Board--Service rule--Promotion from post of line\nmen to line superintendent--Differentiation between  diploma\nand  non-diploma  qualified line men--Fixation of  quota  on\nsuch basis--Held illegal and unconstitutional.\n    Civil Services--P.W.D. (Electricity Branch)\t Provisional\nClass III (Subordinate Posts) Rules, 1952--Line Men to\tLine\nSuperintendent-Promotion of--Differentiation between diploma\nand   non-diploma   holders  in\t fixation   of\t quota\t for\npromotion--Whether valid and constitutional.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Plaintiff-respondent Ravinder Kumar Sharma joined  serv-\nice  as a Line-Man under the  respondent-Electricity  Board.\nThe  terms and conditions of the service of the Line-Man  as\nwell  as  of the Line-Superintendent were  governed  by\t the\nP.W.D. (Electricity Branch) Provisional Class III  (Subordi-\nnate  posts)  Rules 1952. The Line-Man\tare  either  diploma\nholders\t or I.T.I. trained or non-diploma holders  and\tthey\nform  and constitute one common cadre known as Line-Man\t and\nwere in the same scale of pay. The seniority list of all the\nLine-Man is common and joint. By order dated 12.7.1977,\t the\nrespondent-Board  promoted Gutdial Singh, Jaswant Singh\t and\nRamesh\tKumar shown in the common seniority list at S.\tNos.\n1451, 1546 and 2309 respectively, to the pest of Line-Super-\nintendent even though the plaintiff-respondent's position in\nthe  seniority list was at S. No. 995 and he was  senior  to\nthe  said  officials.  By order dated  17.8.1977  the  Chief\nEngineer of the respondent-Electricity Board further promot-\ned  Sudesh Kumar and Virender Kumar whose name stand  at  S.\nNo.  1877 and 2279 in the joint seniority list.\t The  Plain-\ntiff-respondent\t filed a suit alleging that this  policy  of\npromotion from Line-Man to Line-Superintendent on a pick and\nchoose\tbasis by fixing a quota between the diploma  holders\nand non-diploma holders is wholly illegal,  unconstitutional\nand  arbitrary\tas  it adversely  affected  the\t promotional\nprospect of the non-diploma holders Line-Men and prayed\t for\na decree declaring that the orders dated 12.7.1977 and\n73\n17.8.1977  promoting  the  defendants 3 to  7  are  illegal,\ndiscriminatory\tand null and void as it arbitrarily  affects\nthe  rights of the plaintiff who is senior to them and\tthat\nhe  be promoted to the post of Line Superintendent from\t the\ndate defendant Nos. 3 to 7 were promoted.\n    The\t defendant Nos. :1 and 2 contested the claim of\t the\nplaintiff contending that the terms and conditions of  serv-\nice of Line-Man and the Line-Superintendent are governed  by\nthe  P.W.D. (Electricity Branch) Provisional  Service  Class\nIII  (Subordinate  Posts)  Rules 1952 framed  by  the  State\nGovernment  under  Art. 309 of the  Constitution,  that\t the\nElectricity  Board  by various orders prescribed  quota\t for\ndiploma holders Line-Men for promotion to the post of  Line-\nSuperintendent,\t that according to this quota the  defendant\nNos. 3 to 7 have been promoted and that the fixation of\t the\nquota  on the basis of educational qualification  cannot  be\nquestioned as arbitrary or discriminatory-\n    The\t Subordinate  Judge First Class\t decreed  the  suit,\nholding that the plaintiff was entitled to promotion to\t the\npost of Line-Superintendent and the orders dt.12.7.1977\t and\n17.8.1977  whereby the defendant Nos. 3 to 7  were  promoted\neven  though they were junior to the plaintiff\tare  illegal\nand in violation of the rights of the plaintiff and,  there-\nfore, the plaintiff was declared to have been promoted\tfrom\nthe date when his said juniors were promoted.\n    The\t appeal\t filed by the State  Electricity  Board\t was\ndismissed  by  the Additional District\tJudge  holding\tthat\nthere was no reasonable nexus by fixing quota for  promoting\ndiploma-holders Line-Men to the post of\t Line-Superintendent\neven  though the non-diploma holders as well as the  diploma\nholders formed the joint cadre of Line-Man for promotion  to\nthe  post of Line-Superintendent- The judgments and  decrees\nof the Courts below were affirmed by the High Court.\nDismissing the Appeals and the Special Leave Petition,\n     HELD: 1. There is no dispute, rather it is not  contro-\nverted\tthat  in the joint seniority list  of  Line-Men\t the\nplaintiff-respondent's\tname  was mentioned at\tS.  No.\t 995\nwhereas\t names of defendant Nos. 3 to 7 appear in  the\tsaid\nlist at S. Nos. 1451, 1546, 2309, 1877 and 2279\t respective-\nly-  Therefore, all the defendant Nos. 3 to 7 are junior  to\nthe plaintiff-respondent- It is also clear and evident\tfrom\nthe  Office Order No. 97 dated 22.10.68 that the  qualifica-\ntion  for promotion to the post of Line-Superintendent\tfrom\nLine-Man  is either holding certificate or diploma in  Elec-\ntrical Engineering from any recognised institute or\n74\nhaving\tpassed 11\/2 years course in the electrical trade  of\nElectrician\/  Line-Man\/Wire-Man from  recognised  Industrial\nTraining  Institute and are matriculates and have worked  as\nLine-Man for four years continuously and immediately  before\nthe promotion. [80A-C]\n    2. The plaintiff-respondent who is an Arts Graduate\t and\nhave  I.T.I.  Certificate (in the trade of  electrician\t two\nyears' duration) and also have National Apprentice  Certifi-\ncate in the trade of Line-Man 3 years' duration is  eligible\nfor  promotion to the post of Line-Superintendent as he\t has\nfulfilled all the requisite qualifications. All the line-men\neither diploma holders or non-diploma holders are performing\nthe same kind of work and duties and they belong to the same\ncadre  having common\/joint seniority list for  promotion  to\nthe post of Line-Superintendent. The Orders dated  12.7.1977\nbeing  Order No. 73 promoting defendant Nos. 3, 4 and  5  as\nwell as Office Order No. 898 dated 37.8.77 promoting defend-\nant Nos. 6 and 7 on the basis of quota from diploma  holders\nas  fixed by the order of the State Electricity Board  dated\n9.5.74\tis  wholly arbitrary,  illegal,\t discriminatory\t and\nviolative  of the equality clause contained in Arts. 14\t and\n16 of the Constitution in as much as it purports to  promote\ndefendant  Nos.\t 3  to 7 who are admittedly  junior  to\t the\nplaintiff-respondent  in  service as Line-Man in  the  State\nElectricity Board. [80D-G]\nShujat Ali's case [1975] 1 SCR 449 at 480 followed.\n    3.\tThere  is no infirmity in the judgment of  the\tHigh\nCourt affirming the judgment and decree of the Courts below.\n[81E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal Nos.  3341-
\n42\/83 & S.L.P. No. 2693\/84 .\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment & Order dated 25-1-83  of  the\tHigh
\nCourt  of  Punjab  & Haryana in Regular\t Second\t Appeal\t No.
\n254\/83<\/span>
\nHardev Singh and R.S. Sodhi for the Appellants.
\nC.S. Vaidyanathan for the Appellants in C.A.No. 3342\/83.
\nRespondent-in-person.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nB.C. RAY, J. These two appeals by special leave one by the
\n75<\/span>
\nPunjab\tState  Electricity Board, Patiala and the  other  by
\nGurdial\t Singh\t& Ors. who  were  defendant-respondent\tNos.
\n3,4,6  and 7 in Civil Suit No. 293T\/16-1-181\/17-7-80  passed
\nin  R.S.A. No. 254\/38 whereby the judgments and the  decrees
\nof  the courts below were affirmed decreeing  the  plaintiff
\nrespondent’s suit declaring that the plaintiffrespondent  be
\ndeemed to have been promoted from the date when his  juniors
\nas  mentioned  in  the suit were promoted to  the  posts  of
\nLine-Superintendents.\n<\/p>\n
The  case of the plaintiff in short is that  the  plaintiff-
\nrespondent  Ravinder Kumar Sharma joined the  service  under
\nthe  respondent No. 1, Punjab State Electricity Board  as  a
\nLine-Man on 25th December, 1969 and he worked as  apprentice
\nLine-Man from 29.12.1969 to 28.12.1970 on a fixed salary  of
\nRs.  140 per month. Thereafter he was allowed regular  scale
\nof  pay\t of Rs. 110-330 since the date of his joining  as  a
\nLine-Man.  The\tterms and conditions of the service  of\t the
\nLineMen\t as well as of the Line-Superintendent are  governed
\nby the rules framed by the Punjab Government in exercise  of
\nits powers under Art. 309 of the Constitution of India which
\nwere termed as P.W.D. (Electricity Branch) Provisional Class
\nIII  (Subordinate posts) Rules 1952. Subsequently the  State
\nElectricity  Board came into being and the  Electricity\t De-
\npartment  came under the administration of the\tState  Elec-
\ntricity Board.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Plaintiff has stated in the plaint that as a  Line-
\nMan  he had been performing his duties efficiently and\thon-
\nestly  and there was never any complaint against  his  work.
\nHis  work  and conduct had always been\tappreciated  by\t his
\nsuperiors  from\t time to time. He  possesses  the  following
\nqualifications:–\n<\/p>\n
1. B.A.\n<\/p>\n
2. I.T.I. (in the trade of Electrician 2 year’s duration).\n<\/p>\n
3. National Apprentice Certificate in the trade of  Line-Man
\n(3 year’s duration).\n<\/p>\n
     All  the Line-Men under the defendant No. 1,  that\t is,
\nPunjab State Electricity Board are either diploma holders or
\nI.T.I.\ttrained\t or non-diploma holders and  they  form\t and
\nconstitute  one\t common cadre known as Line-Man and  in\t the
\nsame  scale of Rs. 110-330. The seniority list of all  these
\nLine-Men  is common and joint. It has been  further  alleged
\nthat defendant No. 1 had been promoting officials from Line-\n<\/p>\n
76<\/span><\/p>\n
Men to the Line-Superintendent on a pick and choose basis-in
\nconsideration  of the qualifications by fixing a  quota\t be-
\ntween  the diploma holders and non-diploma holders and\tthis
\nhas resulted in arbitrary discrimination between the diploma
\nholders\t and non diploma holders Line-Men thereby  adversely
\naffecting the promotional prospect of the non-diploma  hold-
\ners Line-Men. It has been further stated that this policy of
\nthe defendant No. 1 was set aside by the Punjab and  Haryana
\nHigh  Court  in L.P. No. 618, 619 of 1975 fixing  the  quota
\nbetween diploma holders and non-diploma holders Line  Super-
\nintendents  by orders dated 12.1.1965 and 27.6.1974.  Though
\nthe  minimum  qualification  for promotion  of\tLine-Man  to
\nLine-Superintendent is however matriculation. The  plaintiff
\nalso  stated that by order dated 12.7. 1977  the  respondent
\nNo.  1 promoted Gurdial Singh whose name appeared at S.\t No.
\n1451  in  the common seniority list and also  the  defendant
\nJaswant Singh whose name appeared at S. No. 1546 in the said
\nlist as well as Ramesh Kumar standing at S. No. 2309 in\t the
\nsaid seniority list to the post of Line-Superintendent\teven
\nthough the plaintiffs position in the seniority list was  at
\nS.  No. 995 and he was senior to these officials.  Thus\t the
\nplaintiff  was passed over while his juniors were  promoted.
\nThis  policy  of  pick and choose, it has  been\t stated,  in
\npromoting the officials is wholly illegal and  discriminato-
\nry. It has been further pleaded that by office order No. 899
\ndated  17.8.1977  the defendant No. 2, that  is,  the  Chief
\nEngineer  of the Electricity Board further  promoted  Sudesh
\nKumar and Virender Kumar whose name stand at S. No. 1877 and
\n2279 in the joint seniority list as Line-Superintendent from
\nthe  Line-Man. The petitioner, therefore, pleaded  that\t the
\naction\tof defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in fixing the  quota\t be-
\ntween  diploma holders and non-diploma holders Line-Men\t for
\nthe purpose of promotion to the post of\t Line-Superintendent
\nand  promoting the defendants 3 to 7 to the posts  of  Line-
\nSuperintendent from Line-Man is wholly illegal,\t unconstitu-
\ntional and arbitrary. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for a
\ndecree\tdeclaring  that\t the  orders  dated  12.7.1977.\t and
\n17.8.1977  promoting  the  defendants 3 to  7  are  illegal,
\ndiscriminatory\tand null and void as it arbitrarily  affects
\nthe  rights  of the plaintiff who is senior to them  in\t not
\nbeing  promoted\t to the cadre  of  Line-Superintendent.\t The
\nplaintiff also prayed for a direction that he be promoted to
\nthe post of Line-Superintendent from the date defendant Nos.
\n3 to 7 were promoted to the said post.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t defendant Nos. 1 and 2 contested the claim  of\t the
\nplaintiff by filing written statement stating that the terms
\nand conditions of service of Line-Men and  Line-Superintend-
\nent  are  governed by the rules framed by the  Punjab  State
\nGovernment under Art. 309 of the
\n77<\/span>
\nConstitution  and are termed as P.W.D. (Electricity  Branch)
\nProvisional Service Class III (Subordinate posts) Rule 1952.
\nIt has been further stated that the State Electricity  Board
\nby office order dated 14.5.1970 prescribed a quota of 5% for
\ndiploma holders Line-Men for promotion to the post of  Line-
\nSuperintendent-\t This quota of diploma holders Line-Men\t was
\nincreased  to 20% by the Board by order dated  2.7.1973.  On
\n9.5.1974 the quota of diploma holders Line-Men for promotion
\nto  the\t Line-Superintendent was further  increased  to\t 33%
\nwhereas\t the  quota  for promotion  of\tnon-diploma  holders
\nLine-Men  to  the post of Line-Superintendent was  fixed  at
\n33%.  It  has been stated that according to this  quota\t the
\ndefendant Nos. 3 to 7 have been promoted and the fixation of
\nquota  on the basis of educational qualification  cannot  be
\nquestioned as arbitrary or discriminatory.
\n    After  heating both the parties the\t Subordinate  Judge,
\n1st Class, Patiala, held that the plaintiff was entitled  to
\npromotion to the post of Line-Superintendent and the  orders
\ndated  12.7.1977 and 17.7.1977 whereby the defendant Nos.  3
\nto  7  were  promoted even though they were  junior  to\t the
\nplaintiff are illegal and in violation of the rights of\t the
\nplaintiff.  The suit was decreed and the plaintiff  was\t de-
\nclared to have been promoted from the date when his  juniors
\nmentioned  in the plaint were promoted to the post of  Line-
\nSuperintendent.\n<\/p>\n
    Against this judgment and decree the Punjab State  Elec-
\ntricity\t Board, Patiala filed an appeal being C.A. No.\t4368
\nof  1982.  The\tAdditional District,  Judge,  Patiala  after
\nheating the parties dismissed the appeal with costs  holding
\nthat  there  was  no reasonable nexus by  fixing  quota\t for
\npromoting  diploma-holders  Line-Men to the  post  of  Line-
\nSuperintendent even though the non-diploma holder as well as
\nthe  diploma holders formed the joint cadre of Line-Men\t for
\npromotion  to the post of Line-Superintendent. The  judgment
\nof  the trial court was affirmed and it was also  held\tthat
\nthe appeal was not competent inasmuch as there was no  reso-
\nlution\tof the board authorising the filing of\tthe  appeal.
\nThe  cross objection filed by the  plaintiff-respondent\t was
\nallowed.\n<\/p>\n
     Against  this judgment and decree the defendant Nos.  I
\nand 2 preferred an appeal being R.S.A. 254 of 1983. The said
\nappeal was dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
\nand  the  judgment and decrees of the court below  were\t af-
\nfirmed. It is against this judgment and decree the aforesaid
\ntwo  appeals  on special leave petition have been  filed  in
\nthis Court.\n<\/p>\n
78<\/span><\/p>\n
The only issue raised in this appeal is whether the  defend-
\nant  No. 1, that is, the Punjab State Electricity  Board  is
\ncompetent  to discriminate between diploma holders and\tnon-
\ndiploma\t holders Line-Men forming the common cadre of  Line-
\nMen having a common seniority list in promoting these  Line-
\nMen  on the basis of quota fixed by the order of  the  State
\nElectricity  Board even though the  requisite  qualification
\nfor promotion for Line-Man to the post of  Line-Superintend-
\nent  is\t either the holding of diploma\tor  certificate\t for
\nelectrical  engineering from a recognised institute  or\t the
\nnon-diploma holders having passed one and half year’s course
\nin  the trade of Electrician\/Line-Man\/Wire Man\tfrom  recog-
\nnised Industrial Training Institute and are matriculates and
\nhave  worked  for four years as\t Line-Man  continuously\t and
\nimmediately  before promotion, as has been provided  by\t the
\noffice order No. 97\/ENG\/BET\/G-33 dated 22.10.1968 the  rele-
\nvant excerpt of which is quoted herein below:–\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Far Direct Recruitment:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      a)  Possess  3 years, certificate\t or  diploma
\n\t      course  in  Electrical  Engineering  from\t any
\n\t      recognised  Institute,  or  a  certificate  of
\n\t      having  passed the N.’C.C. Test  conducted  by
\n\t      the  State  Board of  Technical  Education\/All
\n\t      India Council for Technical Education.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      b)  Have passed action of the  Institution  of
\n\t      Engineering  (India)  Exam.  with\t  Elementary
\n\t      Electrical Engineering as the optional paper.
\n\t      For Pormotion\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      c)  (i) Have passed 11\/2 years course  in\t the
\n\t      Electrical\t      Trades\t\t  of
\n\t      Electrician\/Line-Man\/Wire-Man from  recognised
\n\t      Industrial Training Institutes and are matric-
\n\t      ulates and have worked for 4 years as a  Line-
\n\t      Man continuously and immediately before promo-
\n\t      tion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  Have  passed 11\/2 years  course  in\t the
\n\t      Electrical\t      Trades\t\t  of
\n\t      Electrician\/Line-Man\/Wire-Man from  recognised
\n\t      Industrial  Training Institutes and  are\tnon-
\n\t      matriculates  but\t are  capable  of  preparing
\n\t      estimates, writing up measurement books  accu-
\n\t      rately,  keeping store accounts etc. and\thave
\n\t      worked for 4 years as a Line-Man\tcontinuously
\n\t      and immediately before promotion.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      79<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (iii)  Persons holding diploma  in  Electrical
\n\t      Engineering of 3 to 4 years duration recruited
\n\t      as  Line-Man  against the reservation  of\t 60%
\n\t      fixed  for  recruitment  of  persons   holding
\n\t      certificate of 11\/2 years course in the  Elec-
\n\t      trical Trades of Electrician\/Line-Man\/Wire-Man
\n\t      from  recognised\tIndustrial  Training  Insti-
\n\t      tutes,  have  worked as Lint-Man for  3  years
\n\t      continuously and immediately before promotion.
\n\t      On promotion as Line-Superintendent they\twill
\n\t      be  given\t weightage of 2\t years’\t service  as
\n\t      compared\tto non-diploma holders, at the\ttime
\n\t      of  fixation  of their seniority\tand  pay  in
\n\t      accordance with the instructions contained  in
\n\t      Board’s  Memo  No.  88774\/84\/BET\/(33)L   dated
\n\t      29.12.1967.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      D\t (i)  Matriculates Line-Man having  a  total
\n\t      continuous service of 9 years as at A.L.M. and
\n\t      Line-Man out of which they should have  worked
\n\t      as  Line-Man  for\t 4  years  continuously\t and
\n\t      immediately before promotion’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii) Non-matriculates Line-Man having a  total
\n\t      continuous  service of 11 years as A.L.M.\t and
\n\t      Line-Man out of which they should have  worked
\n\t      as  Line-Man for four years, continuously\t and
\n\t      immediately  before promotion,  provided\tthey
\n\t      are capable of preparing estimates, writing up
\n\t      measurement  books  accurately  keeping  store
\n\t      accounts\tand in addition are conversant\twith
\n\t      Consumer Accounts or possess a special experi-
\n\t      ence for transmission line work.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The State Electricity Board by its order dated 14.5.1970
\nintroduced the following quota for promotion to the cadre of
\nLine-Superintendents:\n<\/p>\n
1. Direct recruitment from the open market 62%\n<\/p>\n
2. Diploma holders Line-Men 5%\n<\/p>\n
3. Line Men non-diploma holders 33%.\n<\/p>\n
This quota of promotion for diploma holders Line-Man to\t the
\npest of Line-Superintendent was further increased by  office
\norder No. 244 dated 2.7.1975 by fixing the quota fox  promo-
\ntion  of diploma holders Line-Men already in Service of\t the
\nBoard  from  5% to 20%. Again by office order No.  78  dated
\n9.6.1974  the State Electricity Board further increased\t the
\nquota  of promotion of diploma holders Line-Man\t already  in
\nthe service of the Board from 20% to 33%.\n<\/p>\n
80<\/span><\/p>\n
    There is no dispute, rather it is not controverted\tthat
\nthe  position of the plaintiff-respondent in the joint\tsen-
\niority\tlist of Line-Men in the scale of Rs. 110-330 of\t the
\nPunjab\tState Electricity Board from 1.6.1967  to  31.8.1974
\nwhich  has been filed as additional document by\t the  Punjab
\nState  Electricity Board in C.A. No. 3341 of 1983  that\t the
\nplaintiff-respondent’s\tname  was mentioned at\tS.  No.\t 995
\nwhereas\t names of defendant Nos. 3 to 7 appear in  the\tsaid
\nlist in S. Nos. 1451, 1546, 2309, 1877 and 2279\t respective-
\nly. Therefore all the defendant Nos. 3 to 7 are\t undoubtedly
\njunior\tto the plaintiff-respondent as LineMen in the  joint
\nseniority List of Line-Men comprising of both diploma  hold-
\ners  and non-diploma holders Line-Men in the same cadre.  It
\niS also clear and evident from the office Order No. 97 dated
\n22.10.1968 that the qualification for promotion to the\tpost
\nof Line-Superintendent from Line-Men is either holding\tcer-
\ntificate  or  diploma  in electrical  engineering  from\t any
\nrecognised institute or having passed 1-1\/2 years Course  in
\nthe  electrical trade of  Electrician\/Line-Man\/WireMan\tfrom
\nreCognised  Industrial Training Institute and  are  matricu-
\nlates and have worked as Line-Man for four years continuous-
\nly and immediately before the promotion. The petitioner\t who
\nis  an\tArts Graduate and have I.T.I.  Certificate  (in\t the
\ntrade  of electrician 2 years’ duration) and also  have\t Na-
\ntional\tApprentice  Certificate in the trade of\t Line-Man  3
\nyears’\tduration  is eligible for promotion to the  post  of
\nLine-Superintendent  as he has fulfilled all  the  requisite
\nqualifications.\t There is no gain saying that all the  Line-
\nMen  either diploma holders or non-diploma holders are\tper-
\nforming the same kind of work and duties and they belong  to
\nthe  same  cadre having a common\/joint\tseniority  list\t for
\npromotion  to  the post of Line-Superintendent.\t The  orders
\ndated 12.7.1977 being order No. 73 promoting defendant\tNos.
\n3,  4 and 5 as well as office order No. 898 dated  17.8.1977
\npromoting defendant Nos. 6 and 7 on the basis of quota\tfrom
\ndiploma holders as fixed by the order of the State Electric-
\nity  Board  dated  9.5.1974 is\twholly\tarbitrary,  illegal,
\ndiscriminatory\tand  violative of the equality\tclause\tCon-
\ntained\tin  Arts.  14 and 16 of the  Constitution  of  India
\ninasmuch as it purports to promote defendant Nos. 3 to 7 who
\nare admittedly junior to the respondent No. 1 in service  as
\nLine-Man in the State Electricity Board. It has been rightly
\nheld by following the decision in Shujat Ali’s case [1975] 1
\nS.C.R 449 at 480 that the promotion of defendant Nos. 3 to 7
\nwho are admittedly junior to the plaintiffrespondent in\t the
\nservice\t as Line-Man to the post of Line-Superintendent\t are
\nillegal,  arbitrary  and discriminatory and so\tbad.  It  is
\npertinent to refer to the observations of this Court in\t the
\nsaid case which read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
81<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “But  where  graduates and  non-graduates\t are
\n\t      both regarded as fit and, therefore,  eligible
\n\t      for  promotion,  it is difficult to  see\thow,
\n\t      consistently with the claim for equal opportu-
\n\t      nity  any differentiation can be made  between
\n\t      them  by laying down a quota of promotion\t for
\n\t      each  and\t giving\t preferential  treatment  to
\n\t      graduates over non-graduates in the matter  of
\n\t      fixation of such quota. The result of fixation
\n\t      of  quota\t of promotion for each\tof  the\t two
\n\t      categories of Supervisors would be that when a
\n\t      vacancy arises in the post of Assistant  Engi-
\n\t      neer,  which,  according to the quota  is\t re-
\n\t      served for graduate Supervisors, a  non-gradu-
\n\t      ate  Supervisor  cannot be  promoted  to\tthat
\n\t      vacancy,\teven  if he is senior to  all  other
\n\t      graduate\tSupervisors and more  suitable\tthan
\n\t      they.  His opportunity for promotion would  be
\n\t      limited  only to vacancies available for\tnon-
\n\t      graduate\t Supervisors.  That  would   clearly
\n\t      amount to denial of equal opportunity to him.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    This  observation apply with full force to\tthe  present
\ncase,  and  it has been rightly held by the  High  Court  of
\nPunjab and Haryana that the promotion of defendant Nos. 3 to
\n7 who are junior to the plaintiffrespondent from Line-Man to
\nthe post of Line-Superintendent is wholly bad and  discrimi-
\nnatory\tand directed that the petitioner be  deemed to\thave
\nbeen  promoted to the post of Line-Superintendent  from\t the
\ndate  the  said\t defendants 3 to 7 had\tbeen  promoted\tfrom
\nLine-Man  to Line-Superintendent- In our considered  opinion
\nthere  is  no infirmity in the judgment of  the\t High  Court
\naffirming  the judgment and decree of the courts below.\t and
\nwe  agree with the reasonings and conclusions arrived at  by
\nthe  courts  below. The two appeals on\tspecial\t leave\tare,
\ntherefore, dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.5000 to be
\npaid  by the appellant of C.A. No. 3341 of 1983 to  the\t re-
\nspondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala also  filed
\nspecial leave petition (Civil) No. 2693 of 1984 against\t the
\njudgment and order dated 14.2.1984 passed in Civil  Revision
\nNo.  407  of 1984 by the High Court of\tPunjab\tand  Haryana
\ndismissing the Revision Petition. This Revision Petition was
\nfiled  against the order rejecting the appellant’s  applica-
\ntion  for correction of the decree. As we have already\tdis-
\nmissed\tthe appeals there is no merit in this special  leave
\npetition and the same is accordingly dismissed-\n<\/p>\n
A.  P .J.\t\t\t\tAppeals\t &  Petition\ndismissed.\n82<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Punjab State Electricity … vs Ravinder Kumar Sharma & Ors., Etc on 27 October, 1986 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 367, 1987 SCR (1) 72 Author: B Ray Bench: Ray, B.C. (J) PETITIONER: PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,PATIALA & ANR. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: RAVINDER KUMAR SHARMA & ORS., ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT27\/10\/1986 BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-175877","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPunjab State Electricity ... vs Ravinder Kumar Sharma & Ors., Etc on 27 October, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Punjab State Electricity ... vs Ravinder Kumar Sharma & Ors., Etc on 27 October, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1986-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-18T23:41:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Punjab State Electricity … vs Ravinder Kumar Sharma & Ors., Etc on 27 October, 1986\",\"datePublished\":\"1986-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-18T23:41:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986\"},\"wordCount\":2757,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986\",\"name\":\"Punjab State Electricity ... vs Ravinder Kumar Sharma & Ors., Etc on 27 October, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1986-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-18T23:41:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Punjab State Electricity … vs Ravinder Kumar Sharma & Ors., Etc on 27 October, 1986\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Punjab State Electricity ... vs Ravinder Kumar Sharma & Ors., Etc on 27 October, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Punjab State Electricity ... vs Ravinder Kumar Sharma & Ors., Etc on 27 October, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1986-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-18T23:41:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Punjab State Electricity … vs Ravinder Kumar Sharma & Ors., Etc on 27 October, 1986","datePublished":"1986-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-18T23:41:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986"},"wordCount":2757,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986","name":"Punjab State Electricity ... vs Ravinder Kumar Sharma & Ors., Etc on 27 October, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1986-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-18T23:41:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-vs-ravinder-kumar-sharma-ors-etc-on-27-october-1986#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Punjab State Electricity … vs Ravinder Kumar Sharma & Ors., Etc on 27 October, 1986"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175877","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=175877"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175877\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=175877"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=175877"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=175877"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}