While affirming the view that candidates with fewer man-days who were placed relatively lower than the aggrieved candidate in the seniority list had been appointed to the Post of Lower Division Clerk, the Supreme Court ordered the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company to consider the aggrieved aspirant’s appointment.

The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the appellant’s writ appeal against the order whereby the Appellant was directed to consider the respondent’s appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk or any other suitable post or any other supernumerary post.

The Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said, “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 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.”

AOR Sravan Kumar Karanam represented the Appellant while AOR Vikas Mehta represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board issued a notification to fill up 50% vacancies in certain initial recruitment cadres, including LDCs, from the ex-casual labourers category. The respondent’s application was rejected, 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. Once again, the respondent’s case was rejected as the contractor who issued the service certificate deposed that the respondent did not work under him. Further, the appellant found that the respondent did not qualify for the typewriting exam.

The respondent challenged the order in a writ petition, which came to be disposed of by the High Court by ordering a fresh assessment. The appellant issued a further notification withdrawing the policy subject to the outcome of any pending cases. The Respondent’s Review Petition came to be allowed, and the appellant was asked to consider the respondent’s case.

Reasoning

The Bench rejected the appellant’s argument that the list relied on by the High Court was not a seniority list but only a list of candidates having minimum qualifications who were eligible to attend the interview. It was noted that the list had been placed before by the respondent and was titled “Seniority list of qualified candidates for the post of L.D.C.s”. A perusal of the list also showed that candidates had been arranged in accordance with the date of their first engagement, with those engaged prior in time being placed higher on the list.

The Bench further stated, “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.”

It was noticed that the direction of the Single Judge, when challenged before the Division Bench, culminated in a similar direction to the appellant. The cases of the two persons, at sl. nos. 23 and 28, who were relatively less meritorious, were considered suitable by the respondents. 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, required reconsideration.

As the Bench rejected the contention of the appellant that the list relied on by the High Court was not a seniority list, it held that 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”, it clarified.

In light of the fact that the present litigation was initiated in 2008, the Bench directed the appellant to pass orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 6 weeks.

Cause Title: The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Ch. Bhaskara Chary (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 428)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Sravan Kumar Karanam, Advocates Shireesh Tyagi, P. Geetanjali

Respondent: AOR Vikas Mehta, Advocate Basa Mithun Shashank

Click here to read/download Judgment







Justice Pamidighantam Sri NarasimhaJustice Joymalya Bagchi

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.