Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 428
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)
J U D G M E N T
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
1
respondent’s appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk or
any other suitable post or any other supernumerary post.
3. The short facts that are relevant are as follows. The Andhra
2
Pradesh State Electricity Board 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.
We have heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG for the
9.
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
First
the following reasons. , 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
st
on regular basis in the 1 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
nd
contractual basis have been absorbed on regular basis in the 2
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. ”
Upon contrasting the appointed candidates, as submitted by
11.
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… ”
It is evident from the above that the appellant was directed to
13.
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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 428
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)
J U D G M E N T
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
1
respondent’s appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk or
any other suitable post or any other supernumerary post.
3. The short facts that are relevant are as follows. The Andhra
2
Pradesh State Electricity Board 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.
We have heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG for the
9.
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
First
the following reasons. , 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
st
on regular basis in the 1 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
nd
contractual basis have been absorbed on regular basis in the 2
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. ”
Upon contrasting the appointed candidates, as submitted by
11.
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… ”
It is evident from the above that the appellant was directed to
13.
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