Case Name: THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION, TELANGANA STATE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
VERSUS
CH. BHASKARA CHARY
Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No. 476 OF 2021
Date: April 02, 2025
Quorum: J. PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA and J. JOYMALYA BAGCHI
FACTS OF THE CASE
The present appeal before the Supreme Court arose from an order of the High Court regarding the appointment of the respondent, Ch. Bhaskara Chary, to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC)
In 1997, a notification was issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) to fill 50% vacancies in initial recruitment cadres, including LDCs, from ex-casual labourers category. Guidelines for selection, including age, education qualifications, seniority and reservations were also notified under the same notification.
In 2001, an advertisement was published by the APSEB for appointment to the post of LDC from ex-casual labourers. Ch. Bhaskara Chary (the Respondent) applied for the post of LDC claiming benefit under this policy. But his application was rejected in 2002, on the basis that his service certificate of contract labour was not genuine.
He (respondent) filed a writ petition in the HC and HC directed the appellant to verify his certificate and in 2003, his case was rejected again as the contractor said that he did not work under him, and he was also not qualified for the typewriting exam.
In 2004, HC held that it was not necessary to qualify the typewriting exam and directed reconsideration.
In 2006, the appellant’s Review Committee rejected the appointment due to no vacancy in the BC-B category and that no less meritorious BC-B candidate was appointed. And in November 2006, the appellant withdrew the 1997 policy.
In 2008, the respondent challenged the rejection by a writ petition and the HC initially dismissed the application in 2017 due to delay and rolling back of the policy. But in Review Petition a single Judge Bench noted that he was higher in the list than others who were appointed in such similar cases and the Judge ordered the appellant to consider the respondent for appointment of LDC or any other suitable or supernumerary post like those appointed in W.P. No. 2651 of 2004.
After that the Appellant filed an appeal for the writ petition and the Division Bench of the HC ordered that respondent’s case must be treated at par with the other appointed candidates as he is higher in the list of eligible candidates.
The Appellant filed an appeal in the Apex Court of India and the SC stayed the orders of the HC after noting the appellant’s claim that the list was not a seniority list. And ordered the appellant to file an affidavit regarding the seniority list, appointment criteria and appointment of less experienced candidates
The appellant’s affidavit stated no workable seniority list existed, qualifications were as per the 1997 notification, 6 candidates with fewer man-days were appointed under the first notification (to which the respondent didn’t apply), and 3 others (M. Laxminarsu, M. Bhaskar, A. Karunakar Reddy) with fewer man-days were appointed under the second notification due to High Court orders.
The respondent presented a list titled “Seniority list of qualified candidates for the post of L.D.C.s” where his name was at serial number 22, and M. Bhaskar and M. Laxminarsu were at serial numbers 23 and 28 respectively.
ISSUES
Whether the list which was scrutinized by the HC was a seniority list or merely a list of eligible candidates.
Whether the respondent’s case should be considered for appointment on par with candidates who were lower in the alleged seniority list but were appointed pursuant to other High Court directions.
Whether the genuineness of the respondent’s service certificate and the lack of vacancies were valid grounds for rejecting his appointment.
Withdrawal of the 1997 policy affects the respondent’s case or not?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
The case involves the Judicial Review of the administrative actions through Writ Petitions to the HC and the SC under Article 226 and Article 32 of the Indian Constitution respectively.
The case also involves principles of equality before the law (Article 14) and equal opportunity in employment (Article 16) under the Constitution of India, as the High Court and Supreme Court considered treating similarly situated individuals in a like manner
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT CONTENTION:
The list relied upon by the High Court was not a seniority list but merely a list of candidates with minimum qualifications eligible for the interview.
The respondent’s service certificate of contract labour was not genuine, as the contractor who issued it testified that the respondent did not work under him.
There were no vacancies against which the respondent could be appointed.
The respondent did not apply under the first notification of 1997, under which some candidates with fewer man-days were appointed.
The policy of 1997 was withdrawn in 2006.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:
The list on which his name appeared at serial number 22 was indeed a seniority list of qualified candidates.
Candidates at serial numbers 23 and 28 of the same list (M. Bhaskar and M. Laxminarsu) were appointed pursuant to High Court directions in other writ petitions, despite being lower in the list and having fewer man-days.
He should be treated on par with those candidates who were appointed, as he was in a relatively better position in the seniority list.
The High Court had already addressed the issue of the typewriting qualification in his favor.
ANALYSIS
The Hon’ble SC rejected the contention that the list was not a seniority list, based on its title and arrangement of the candidates by their first engagement date. The appellant’s admission that few other candidates were appointed with lesser man-days supported this finding.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s reasoning that since candidates lower in the seniority list (with fewer man-days) were appointed due to other High Court orders, the respondent’s case should be considered similarly, and he (respondent) must be treated in the same manner.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the appellant’s arguments regarding the genuineness of the service certificate and the lack of vacancies but stated that these issues could not be decided by the Supreme Court at this stage.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s direction to reconsider the respondent’s case.
JUDGEMENT
The SC dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s order directed the appellant to reconsider the appointment of the respondent for the post of the LDC or any equivalent post where a vacancy exists.
Considering that the present litigation was initiated in 2008, the SC directed the appellant to pass orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of the judgement.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court essentially affirmed the High Court’s direction to the appellant to reconsider the respondent’s application for the post of LDC. The core reasoning was that the respondent, being higher in the seniority list than some other ex-casual labourers who were appointed due to previous High Court orders, deserved to be treated on par with them. While the Supreme Court did not definitively order the appointment of the respondent, it mandated a reconsideration of his case, allowing the appellant to raise other concerns (like the genuineness of the certificate and availability of vacancies) during this process. The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering individuals in a relatively better position in the selection process at least in the same manner as those less meritorious who have already received a favorable consideration.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY ABHINAV VERMA
