A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Ch. Bhaskara Chary concerns entitlement to regular appointment from a quota created for ex-casual labourers under an administrative policy. The appellant authority repeatedly rejected the respondent’s claim for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on multiple grounds alleged forgery of service certificate, failure in typewriting and absence of vacancy despite the respondent appearing higher in the published seniority list of qualified candidates. The High Court directed reconsideration and ordered that the respondent be considered for appointment pari passu with candidates placed lower in the list but earlier regularized; the division bench upheld that order.

The Supreme Court examined whether the list before the High Court was a mere list of eligible candidates or a seniority/gradation list, whether the respondent was entitled to parity with appointed candidates who had fewer man-days, and whether factual issues of certificate genuineness and vacancy could be finally resolved by the Court at the interlocutory stage. The Court found the list to be a seniority list, noted admissions in the appellant’s affidavit that less-tenured candidates were regularized, and held that the respondent’s case must be reconsidered on par with those candidates while permitting the authority to examine other factual aspects and pass appropriate orders. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration within a prescribed time.

Keywords: appointment, LDC, ex-casual labourers, seniority list, man-days

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The judgment arises from long-running litigation about absorption of contractually engaged or ex-casual labourers into regular posts under a specific departmental policy providing 50% of vacancies in certain initial recruitment cadres for such labourers. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board framed a policy dated 18.05.1997, followed by an advertisement dated 11.03.2001 for LDC vacancies from the ex-casual labourers category. The respondent applied under this scheme but departmental scrutiny repeatedly rejected his claim — first questioning the authenticity of his service certificate and later on the ground that he lacked the typewriting qualification. High Court intervention led to the finding that typewriting was not a required qualification and directed reconsideration. A Review Committee again rejected the respondent on the ground that there was no BC-B vacancy and observed that candidates with lesser man-days had not been appointed under the relevant quota.

The respondent delayed further litigation but ultimately succeeded before a single judge who, relying on a list of qualified candidates (titled seniority list of qualified candidates for the post of L.D.C.s), observed that candidates placed lower than the respondent (sl. nos. 23 and 28) had been regularized and therefore ordered that the respondent be considered pari passu with them. The division bench affirmed. The appellant brought the matter to this Court challenging the nature of the list, the genuineness of the service certificate, and the absence of vacancy. The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the High Court correctly treated the published list as a seniority/gradation list and whether parity was warranted given the admitted appointment of less-tenured candidates. The Court accepted the High Court’s characterization of the list and remitted the matter for reconsideration while permitting the authority to examine other factual contentions.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The APSEB issued an administrative policy on 18.05.1997 permitting filling up 50% of specified initial recruitment cadre posts from ex-casual labourers. Criteria for selection under clauses 5 and 6 included age, educational qualifications, seniority, reservations and a selection committee. Pursuant thereto, an advertisement dated 11.03.2001 was issued for LDC posts from the ex-casual labourers category. The respondent applied but on 21.01.2002 his application was rejected on the ground that his service certificate issued by a contractor was not genuine; the High Court directed verification and the matter returned to the authority. On 13.03.2003 the contractor deposed that the respondent had not worked under him and the department reiterated rejection.

On 14.04.2003 the authority additionally recorded that the respondent failed the typewriting examination. A writ petition challenged the latter and on 01.11.2004 the High Court held typewriting was not an essential qualification and directed fresh consideration. The Review Committee on 28.03.2006 again rejected the respondent alleging there was no BC-B vacancy and noting that candidates with fewer man-days than the respondent had been appointed. Meanwhile, the department withdrew the relevant policy w.e.f. 15.09.2006, subject to pending litigation. The respondent approached the High Court in 2008 challenging the Review Committee order; despite initial dismissal on delay grounds the review petition was allowed on 24.09.2018 because the respondent was shown at sl. no. 22 in a seniority list while appointees at sl. nos. 23 and 28 had been regularized.

The High Court directed reconsideration and parity; the division bench dismissed the writ appeal on identical reasoning. The appellant before the Supreme Court admitted in affidavit (04.07.2024) that some candidates with fewer man-days were regularized and denied the genuineness of respondent’s certificate. The Supreme Court examined whether the list before the High Court was indeed a seniority list and whether parity was warranted, finding in favour of the respondent on the list characterization and remitting consideration while preserving the authority’s ability to decide other factual issues.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the list relied upon by the High Court was merely a list of eligible candidates or constituted a workable gradation/seniority list relevant for selection and parity?
ii. Whether a candidate placed higher in the seniority list is entitled to be treated pari passu with candidates placed lower who were regularized despite having served fewer man-days?
iii. Whether factual disputes as to genuineness of service certificate and non-availability of vacancy could be finally adjudicated by the Court at the interlocutory stage?
iv. Whether the authority’s withdrawal of the policy and subsequent recruitment policy changes affect the entitlement of pending claimants under earlier notifications?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the list placed before the High Court was not a seniority/gradation list but only a list of eligible candidates prepared to conduct interviews; hence parity could not be premised on its entries. They contended that the respondent’s service certificate was not genuine pointing to the contractor’s deposition and the police report and therefore he could not be considered for appointment. They further argued that the respondent had failed the typewriting test and that there were no live vacancies in the BC-B category against which the respondent could be absorbed. The appellant urged that the policy dated 18.05.1997 was formally withdrawn w.e.f. 15.09.2006, and subsequently all vacancies were being filled by direct recruitment, which curtailed any prospective relief. The appellant stressed that factual questions about authenticity of documents and vacancy position were within the exclusive domain of the administrative authority and not amenable to equitable direction without thorough departmental scrutiny.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent submitted that the list filed and titled seniority list of qualified candidates for the post of L.D.C.s placed the respondent at sl. no. 22 and that earlier-placed candidates with fewer man-days had been regularized; therefore, denial of similar consideration was arbitrary and discriminatory. They relied on the High Court’s prior view that typewriting was not an essential qualification for the vacancy under the relevant notification and urged that the authority’s inconsistent actions (regularizing less-tenured persons while rejecting the respondent) warranted direction for parity. The respondent pressed that the genuineness of the service certificate had been ordered investigated earlier by the High Court and that the department’s repeated rejections required fresh, fair and consistent consideration in the light of admitted regularizations. Finally, the respondent sought a direction for appointment to any suitable or supernumerary post in parity with those earlier regularized.

H) JUDGMENT 

The Supreme Court granted leave and examined the character of the list relied upon by the High Court, the admitted fact that less-tenured candidates were regularized, and the scope of factual disputes. The Court rejected the appellant’s contention that the list was merely eligible candidates since the document was titled seniority list of qualified candidates for the post of L.D.C.s, arranged by date of first engagement consistent with gradation. The appellant’s own affidavit admitted that six candidates with fewer man-days were absorbed under the first notification and three similarly situated candidates under the second notification were regularized following High Court directions. This admission undermined the appellant’s plea that parity was inappropriate.

The Court held that where administrative action has already regularized persons placed lower in the gradation, similarly placed candidates higher in gradation cannot be arbitrarily denied consideration; hence the High Court correctly directed reconsideration pari passu. However, the Supreme Court observed that issues such as genuineness of service certificate and vacancy position involve fact finding and cannot be finally decided in a writ appeal at the constitutional court stage.

Consequently, the Court remitted the matter to the appellant to reconsider the respondent’s case on par with those earlier regularized but permitted the authority to take into account genuine factual aspects and pass appropriate reasoned orders. The Court rejected the attempt to quash the High Court direction as the facts and admissions supported the High Court’s inference regarding parity. The Supreme Court directed expeditious consideration and asked the authority to pass orders preferably within six weeks. No costs were awarded.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The operative ratio is two-fold. First, if an administrative list is in substance a seniority/gradation list and the authority has acted to absorb certain candidates placed lower in that list, equal treatment mandates that candidates placed higher with comparable or superior man-days be considered on the same footing; differential treatment in such circumstances is unsustainable. Second, where factual issues (e.g., documentary genuineness, actual vacancy position) are disputed, the constitutional courts should remit for administrative adjudication rather than resolve complex factual controversies on the writ side; courts can direct reconsideration with protective timelines while leaving fact-finding to the competent authority. The balance ensures both protection against arbitrary denial and respect for administrative fact-finding.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court observed by way of guidance that departmental withdrawals of policy or subsequent recruitment modalities do not automatically defeat pending legitimate claims; each claim must be examined on its individual merits in light of policy timelines and judicial directions. The Court emphasized that labels (eligible list vs. seniority list) are subordinate to the substantive arrangement and purpose of a list; a document titled and arranged by date of engagement cannot be lightly treated as non-gradational. The Court also noted that prolonged litigation (this matter initiated in 2008) requires expeditious finalization, and judicial directions should include clear timelines to prevent indefinite pendency. These remarks, though not strictly necessary to the decision, inform future administrative and judicial conduct.

c. GUIDELINES

1. Where a departmental list is titled seniority or arranged by date of first engagement it should be treated as a gradation list for purposes of equitable consideration.

2. If candidates placed lower in such a list have been regularized, similarly placed or higher candidates must be given parity unless there is a compelling, recorded reason for differential treatment.

3. Factual disputes concerning authenticity of service certificates and vacancy availability should be resolved by the administrative authority through an inquiry or review process; the court may remit for such consideration rather than decide them on the writ record.

4. When remitting, courts should fix reasonable timelines for administrative decision to prevent prolonged delay; directions should permit the authority to record reasons and, if necessary, follow fair inquiry procedures.

5. Withdrawal of a policy does not ipso facto extinguish pending claims; authorities must assess pending claims made prior to withdrawal in accordance with law and equity.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment preserves core principles of fairness in recruitment while respecting administrative prerogative in fact-finding. It reinforces that administrative inconsistency regularizing some and denying others in comparable gradation positions attracts judicial correction. At the same time, the Court declined to resolve contested factual questions (such as forged service certificates and precise vacancy arithmetic) which would require evidentiary processes and departmental expertise. Practically, the judgment mandates a fresh, reasoned reconsideration of the respondent’s claim, ensures parity where established irregularity exists, and leaves open the authority’s right to refuse appointment after proper inquiry. For service jurisprudence, the case underscores the importance of maintaining clear gradation lists, consistent application of reservation and quota rules, and contemporaneous, reasoned records when deviating from seniority. The direction to decide within six weeks reflects judicial impatience with protracted litigation in recruitment matters and signals that litigants and authorities alike must resolve such claims promptly.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. The Superintending Engineer, Operation, TSSPDCL & Ors. v. Ch. Bhaskara Chary, Civil Appeal No. 4724 of 2025, Judgment dated 02.04.2025.

b. Important Statutes / Instruments Referred
i. Notification dated 18.05.1997 (policy for filling 50% vacancies from ex-casual labourers).
ii. Advertisement dated 11.03.2001 for appointment to LDC from ex-casual labourers.