Supreme Court Directs Reconsideration of Appointment Based on Seniority List for Ex-Casual Labourer.


02 April 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Supreme Court of India in The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Others v/s Ch. Bhaskara Chary., has directed the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) to reconsider the appointment of a former casual labourer to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) or an equivalent position. This order comes in response to an appeal filed by APSEB against a High Court directive that had instructed the Board to consider the respondent's case on par with other similarly situated candidates who were appointed despite being lower in the seniority list of eligible candidates.

The case has a protracted history, originating from a 1997 policy by APSEB to fill 50% of certain entry-level vacancies, including LDCs, from the ex-casual labourers category. The respondent applied for the post of LDC in response to a 2001 advertisement issued under this policy. However, his application was rejected in 2002 based on doubts about the genuineness of his contract labour service certificate. This rejection initiated a series of legal challenges by the respondent.


 

 

The High Court, in earlier proceedings, had directed APSEB to verify the respondent's certificate and later ruled that typewriting qualification was not a mandatory requirement for the post, instructing the Board to reconsider his case. Subsequently, a Review Committee of APSEB rejected the respondent's appointment in 2006, citing the absence of vacancies in the BC-B category under the ex-casual labourers' quota and stating that no less meritorious BC-B candidate had been appointed.

Challenging this rejection in a 2008 writ petition, the respondent initially faced dismissal due to delay and the subsequent withdrawal of the 1997 policy in 2006. However, a review petition was allowed by a single judge of the High Court in 2018. The single judge noted that the respondent's name appeared higher in the list of eligible candidates compared to others who were appointed following a High Court order in a separate writ petition. Consequently, the single judge directed APSEB to consider the respondent's appointment to the post of LDC or any other suitable or supernumerary post on par with those other appointed candidates. This order was upheld by a division bench of the High Court in 2020, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, APSEB argued that the list relied upon by the High Court was merely a list of eligible candidates for interview and not a seniority list. However, the Supreme Court, after examining the list titled "Seniority list of qualified candidates for the post of L.D.C.s" which arranged candidates by their initial engagement date, rejected this contention. The Court also noted APSEB's admission in an affidavit that candidates with fewer man-days than the respondent were appointed based on High Court orders in other writ petitions, and these candidates were indeed placed lower than the respondent in the said list.

While the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reasoning regarding the seniority list, it acknowledged APSEB's other concerns, including the alleged lack of genuineness of the respondent's service certificate and the absence of current vacancies. The Court clarified that these aspects were beyond the purview of its current adjudication.

Therefore, the Supreme Court directed APSEB to reconsider the respondent's case for appointment to the post of LDC or any other equivalent post where a vacancy might exist. The Court explicitly stated that APSEB could take into account other aspects of the matter, which they had sought to contend, while passing a fresh order. Given the long pendency of the litigation, APSEB has been directed to pass the order expeditiously, preferably within six weeks.

This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to seniority lists in public appointments, particularly when considering similarly situated candidates. While the Court refrained from ruling on the veracity of the service certificate and the availability of vacancies, it mandated a fresh consideration of the respondent's claim based on his relative position in the seniority list compared to those already appointed.