The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors. vs Ch. Bhaskara Chary

2025 INSC 428 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No. 476 OF 2021

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION, TELANGANA STATE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

CH. BHASKARA CHARY …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal arises from order dated 02.12.2020 by

which the division bench of the High Court dismissed the

appellant’s writ appeal against order dated 24.09.2018 wherein

the learned single judge directed the appellant to consider the

respondent’s appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk 1 or

any other suitable post or any other supernumerary post.

3. The short facts that are relevant are as follows. The Andhra

Pradesh State Electricity Board 2 issued a notification dated Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by KAPIL TANDON Date: 2025.04.02 17:57:31 IST Reason: 1 Hereinafter “LDC”.

2 Hereinafter “APSEB”.

1 18.05.1997 to fill up 50% vacancies in certain initial recruitment

cadres, including LDCs, from ex-casual labourers category.

Clauses 5 and 6 of this notification provided the guidelines for

selection of candidates from this category, including age,

educational qualifications, seniority, reservations, and selection

committee. Under this policy, APSEB issued an advertisement

dated 11.03.2001 for appointment to the post of LDC from ex-

casual labourers category. The respondent sought to claim benefit

under this policy and applied but his application was rejected on

21.01.2002 stating that his service certificate of contract labour

was not genuine. The appellant challenged this order by way of a

writ petition and the High Court directed the appellant to verify his

certificate by order dated 24.12.2002.

4. Once again, by order dated 13.03.2003, the respondent’s

case was rejected as the contractor who issued the service

certificate deposed that the respondent did not work under him.

Further, by order dated 14.04.2003, the appellant found that the

respondent did not qualify the typewriting exam and hence could

not be considered for the post. The respondent challenged the

order dated 14.04.2003 in a writ petition, which came to be

disposed of by the High Court order dated 01.11.2004 holding that

2 the typewriting qualification is not required and therefore, directed

the appellant to reconsider his case afresh.

5. Pursuant to the above-referred direction of the High Court,

the appellant’s Review Committee re-examined the respondent’s

case, and yet again rejected his appointment by order dated

28.03.2006. This time, on a new ground that there is no vacancy

in the BC-B category in LDC cadre under the 50% quota

earmarked for ex-casual labourers, and that no BC-B candidate

who has put in lesser man-days than the respondent was

appointed. On 15.11.2006, the appellant issued a further

notification withdrawing the policy dated 18.05.1997 w.e.f

15.09.2006, subject to the outcome of any pending cases before

the High Court or this Court.

6. The respondent filed a writ petition, only in the year 2008,

challenging the Review Committee’s order dated 28.03.2006.

Initially, by order dated 26.04.2017, the learned single judge

dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay in approaching

the High Court and in view of the subsequent withdrawal of the

policy. However, the respondent’s review petition came to be

allowed by the learned single judge by order dated 24.09.2018 on

the ground that the respondent’s name appears at sl. no. 22 in the

3 list of eligible candidates, while those at sl. nos. 23 and 28 in the

same list were appointed. The Court reasoned that since those who

were relatively less meritorious were considered favourably

pursuant to the High Court’s direction in a separate writ petition,

the respondent must be treated at par with them as he is in a

relatively better position. Hence, the Court directed the appellant

to consider the respondent’s case for appointment to the post of

LDC or any other suitable post or any suitable supernumerary post

in the same manner as the other case. The appellant’s writ appeal

came to be dismissed by the order impugned herein, on a similar

reasoning that the respondent’s case must be treated at par with

the other appointed candidates as he is higher in the list of eligible

candidates.

7. While issuing notice by the order dated 22.02.2021, this

Court took note of the appellant’s submission that the list relied

on by the High Court wherein the respondent appears at sl. no. 22

is not a seniority list but only a list of eligible candidates, and also

stayed the operation of the impugned order. Further, by order

dated 26.04.2024, this Court directed the appellant to file an

affidavit to the following effect:

4

(i) Whether there was any workable gradation/seniority list

of the contractually appointed employees like the

respondent?

(ii) What was the criteria followed for regular appointment in

terms of the policy decision?

(iii) Whether candidates, who have served for less man-days

than the respondent on contractual basis, have been

absorbed on regular basis?

(iv) If so, whether the claim of the respondent was ever

considered along with such employees?

(v) Whether the respondent can be adjusted against a future

vacancy as and when arises without payment of any

backwages?

8. Pursuant to this order, the appellant filed an affidavit dated

04.07.2024 furnishing the requisite information as follows:

(i) There is no workable gradation/seniority list of

contractually appointed workers like the respondent as

they were not employees. The list of qualified candidates

was prepared based on their service certificates from their

respective contractors and after taking man-days into

consideration for conducting interviews to the post of LDC.

5

(ii) That the qualifications for appointment under the

notifications dated 18.05.1997 and 11.03.2001 are

stipulated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the 18.05.1997

notification.

(iii) That 6 candidates with less man-days than the respondent

have been appointed under the 18.05.1997 notification.

However, the respondent only applied under the second

notification issued on 11.03.2001. Under this notification,

M. Laxminarsu (BC-B), M. Bhaskar (BC-A), and A.

Karunakar Reddy (OC), who have served less man-days

than the respondent, were appointed pursuant to the High

Court’s direction in certain other writ petitions. However,

the appointment of M. Laxminarsu (BC-B) and M. Bhaskar

(BC-A) was prior to the withdrawal of the policy. Further,

that as per the report of the Inspector of Police dated

21.01.2002, the respondent’s service certificate is not

genuine as the contractor who issued the same has

deposed that the respondent did not work under him.

(iv) The respondent’s case was considered with similarly

situated persons. However, as his service certificate was

not genuine, he was not appointed. His appointment was

6 rejected by the Review Committee’s speaking order dated

28.03.2006.

(v) Since the respondent’s service certificate is not genuine,

he cannot be considered for appointment in any future

post. Further, all vacancies in all cadres are being filled

through direct recruitment.

9. We have heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG for the

appellant and Mr. Basa Mithun Shashank, learned counsel for the

respondent.

10. The appellant’s case before us is that the list relied on by the

High Court is not a seniority list but only a list of candidates having

minimum qualification, who are eligible to attend the interview.

However, upon closer scrutiny, we must reject this submission for

the following reasons. First, this list has been placed before us by

the respondent and is titled “Seniority list of qualified candidates

for the post of L.D.C.s”. A perusal of the list also shows that

candidates have been arranged in accordance with the date of their

first engagement, with those engaged prior in time being placed

higher on the list. Second, in the affidavit dated 04.07.2024, the

appellant admits that persons with lesser man-days than the

respondent were appointed to the post under the 11.03.2001

7 notification, pursuant to the direction of the High Court in certain

other writ petitions. The relevant portion of the affidavit is

extracted below:

“It is submitted that six (6) candidates who have served for less man-

days than the respondent on contractual basis, have been absorbed

on regular basis in the 1st Notification, to which notification the

respondent was not a candidate. Two more candidates namely M.

Laxminarsu (BC-B), M. Bhaskar (BC-A) and A. Karunakar Reddy (OC)

who have served for less man-days than the respondent on

contractual basis have been absorbed on regular basis in the 2nd

notification on the basis of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ

Petition Nos. 26515 of 2004 and 858 of 2009. B.P.Ms. No.36 was

withdrawn vide C.O.O (CGM-HRD) Ms. No. 470, dt. 15.09.2006. It is

pertinent to mention here that Sri. M Laxminarsu (BC-B) and M.

Bhaskar (BC-A) were appointed prior to withdrawal of B.P.Ms.

No.36.”

11. Upon contrasting the appointed candidates, as submitted by

the appellant, with the seniority list placed before us by the

respondent, we find that M. Bhaskar (BC-A) and M. Laxminarsu

(BC-B) appear at sl. nos. 23 and 28 respectively. In this view of the

matter, we reject the appellant’s submission that the list relied on

by the High Court was not a seniority list and find that the High

Court has correctly reasoned that candidates with lesser man-days

8 than the respondent, who are placed relatively lower than the

respondent in the seniority list, have been appointed and hence

the respondent’s case must be considered by the appellant on par

with them.

12. The appellant has also taken other grounds before us, namely

that the respondent’s service certificate is not genuine as the

contractor who issued the same has deposed that the respondent

did not work under him. Further, that there are no vacancies

against which the respondent can be appointed. These issues

cannot be decided by the Supreme Court. At this stage, it is

necessary to refer to the specific directions of the learned single

judge of the High Court disposing of the writ and review petitions,

which we have extracted hereinunder:

“7. …It is also an undisputed fact that the cases of the said two

persons, who are relatively less meritorious, were considered and

their cases were considered suitably by the respondents. The

petitioner in a way is requesting to direct the respondents to consider

his case in the same manner and on par with cases of the above said

two person notwithstanding the orders in this writ petition. In that

view of the given to the respondents to consider his case in the same

manner and on par with the cases of the writ petitioners is W.P. No.

2651 of 2004, as he is relatively in a better position in the list of than

the above said two persons, this court is of the considered view that

9 the review petition can be disposed of granting an appropriate relief

to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the review petition is disposed of directing the

respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of LDC

or any other suitable post or any suitable supernumerary post in the

same manner as was done in the cases of the writ petitioners in W.P

No. 265 of 2004 and on par with the said writ petitioners…”

13. It is evident from the above that the appellant was directed to

consider the case of the respondent in the context of the relative

facts indicated in the order.

14. The direction of the single judge, when challenged before the

division bench, culminated in a similar direction to the appellant

as even the division bench found it appropriate that the

respondent’s case, in the context of appointment of candidates at

sl. nos. 23 and 28, requires to be reconsidered. The relevant

portion of the division bench’s order is extracted below:

“5. … The petitioners in WP.No.2651 of 2004, who are also similarly

placed as that of the petitioner herein and found at Sl.Nos.23 and 28

in the list, were regularized pursuant to the order passed in the said

writ petition. The petitioner herein cannot be given a differential

treatment. The case of the petitioner deserves to be considered on par

with the petitioners in WP.No.2651 of 2004 for the reason that the

petitioner is placed high up in the list of qualified candidates than the

10 petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition and that the petitioner has

got more man-days. The said fact was brought to the notice of the

learned Single Judge in the review petition. Having considered the

same, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the

petitioner has to be treated on par with the petitioners in WP.No.2651

of 2004 and allowed the review petition directing the respondents to

consider the case of the petitioner to the post of LDC or any other

suitable post or any suitable supernumerary post in the same manner

as was done in the cases of the writ petitioners in WP. No 2651 of

2024 and on par with the said writ petitioners, notwithstanding the

order dated 26.04.2017.

6. In view of the above observations, this Court does not find any

merit in the writ appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is,

hereby, dismissed.”

15. In view of the above, as we have rejected the contention of the

appellant that the list relied on by the High Court is not a seniority

list, the respondent’s appointment shall not be rejected on this

ground. However, while reconsidering the case of the respondent

for appointment to the post of LDC or any other equivalent post in

which a vacancy may exist, they may take into account other

aspects of the matter, which they sought to contend before us, and

pass appropriate orders. Considering that the present litigation

was initiated in 2008, we direct the appellant to pass orders as

11 expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 weeks

from today.

16. With these directions, we dispose of the present appeal.

17. No order as to costs.

18. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

………………………………....J. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

………………………………....J. [JOYMALYA BAGCHI] NEW DELHI;

APRIL 02, 2025

12