Supreme Court: Mere Fact That Candidate Has Been Agitating His Cause From 2007 Can't Result In An Appointment When There Is No Legal Basis
|The Supreme Court set aside the Telangana High Court’s Order that had directed the appointment of the Respondent as an Office Subordinate.
The Supreme Court has remarked that the mere fact that a candidate has been agitating his cause from 2007 cannot result in an appointment when there is no legal basis shown.
The Court allowed the Appeal filed by the Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd. (TSSPDCL/Appellant), setting aside the Telangana High Court’s Order that had directed the appointment of the Respondent as an Office Subordinate in the company. The Court held that the Respondent’s case could not be equated with that of another contract worker who had suffered permanent disability, and there was no legal basis for granting him an alternate appointment.
A Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran held, “The mere fact that respondent No.1 has been agitating his cause from 2007 cannot result in an appointment when there is no legal basis shown for giving such alternate appointment.”
AOR Sravan Kumar Karanam represented the Appellants, while AOR A. Karthik appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Respondent had failed to qualify in the physical test required for regular appointment to the post. He had previously sustained a fracture in an accident while performing his duties and argued that his inability to clear the test was due to the injury. The Telangana High Court’s Single Bench directed his appointment as an Office Subordinate, stating that his case was similar to that of another worker who had been appointed to a non-technical post after an accident. The Division Bench upheld this decision, leading the Appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court explained, “Admittedly, even the selection was to the post of CJLM as a contract employee in the appellant-Company. Having failed in the physical test, the respondent No.1 cannot seek for regular appointment as an Office Subordinate. As far as the disability; from the records, we find that the case of A. Anjaneyalu and respondent No.1 are quite distinct and different. A. Anjaneyalu suffered a permanent disability by reason of the accident while carrying out the duties of the CJLM.”
On the other hand, the bench pointed out that the Respondent had suffered a fracture in the accident while he was performing the duties and there was no permanent disability. “Respondent No.1 only submitted that he has a rod implanted in his hand which resulted in his failure in the physical test. As we noticed respondent No.1 had invited an order in a Writ Petition, appeared in the physical test, in which he failed and then, on an after-thought, has taken the contention,” it stated.
“We have, absolutely, no reason to equate the case of A. Anjaneyalu with respondent No.1. We cannot also countenance, the order of the learned Single Judge which directed appointment as an Office Subordinate; equating the case of A. Anjaneyalu with the respondent No.1,” it remarked.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “We hence, allow the appeal setting aside the order of the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge, thus, rejecting the Writ Petition filed by respondent No.1. We leave the parties to suffer their respective costs.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Southern Power Distribution Company Of Telangana Ltd.(TSSPDCL) & Ors. v. B Ramesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 326)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Sravan Kumar Karanam; Advocates Shireesh Tyagi, Aniket Singh and Kumar Abhishek
Respondents: AOR A. Karthik; Advocates Smrithi Suresh, Sugam Agrawal and Ujjwal Sharma