Supreme Court of India
THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION, TELANGANA STATE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. & ORS.versusCH. BHASKARA CHARY
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 428
- Decided
- 1 April 2025
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly treated the list as a seniority list and that the respondent must be considered for appointment on par with the less‑meritorious candidates who were earlier appointed.
Summary
The appellant, the Superintending Engineer, challenged a High Court order directing it to consider the respondent’s appointment as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) or any suitable/supernumerary post. The respondent had applied under the 1997 and 2001 APSEB recruitment notifications but was rejected on grounds of a purportedly forged service certificate and lack of type‑writing qualification. The High Court held that the list presented by the respondent was a seniority list and, because candidates with fewer man‑days had been appointed, the respondent must be treated on par with them. The appellant argued that the list was merely a list of eligible candidates and that the respondent’s certificate was not genuine, contending there were no vacancies. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, confirming the list as a seniority list and affirming that the respondent’s case must be reconsidered for appointment in line with the less‑meritorious candidates already appointed. It directed the appellant to pass appropriate orders within six weeks, without ordering any costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the list relied upon by the High Court constitutes a seniority list for appointment purposes.
- Whether the respondent’s service certificate, deemed not genuine, bars his appointment.
- Whether the appellant is obligated to consider the respondent’s case on par with candidates who had fewer man‑days and were appointed.
- Whether any vacancy exists for the respondent’s appointment as LDC or a suitable/supernumerary post.
- Whether the High Court’s direction is binding on the appellant.
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the respondent ought to be considered for the appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk-LDC or any other suitable or supernumerary post, as directed by Appointment to the post of LDC – Respondent was denied appointment to the post of LDC despite being placed higher in the seniority list – High Court directed respondent’s appointment to the post of LDC or any other suitable or supernumerary post – Correctness: Held:
Subjects
AppointmentLower Division Clerk (LDC)Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB)Seniority ListList of eligible candidatesHigher in the list of eligible candidatesLess man‑daysInitial recruitment cadreEx‑casual labourers categoryService certificateTypewriting examSupernumerary postSuitable postContractorContractually appointed employeesQualified candidatesMinimum qualificationReview committeeWorkable gradationRegular appointmentAbsorbed on regular basisFuture vacancy
Judgment
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 543 : 2025 INSC 428
The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Telangana State
Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors.
v.
Ch. Bhaskara Chary
(Civil Appeal No. 4724 of 2025)
02 April 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and
Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the respondent ought to be considered for the appointment
to the post of Lower Division Clerk-LDC or any other suitable or
supernumerary post, as directed by High Court.
Headnotes†
Service Law – Appointment to the post of LDC – Respondent
was denied appointment to the post of LDC despite being
placed higher in the seniority list – High Court directed
respondent’s appointment to the post of LDC or any other
suitable or supernumerary post – Correctness:
Held: High Court rightly held that candidates with lesser man-days
than the respondent placed relatively lower than him in the seniority
list were appointed – Respondent’s case must be considered by the
appellant at par with them – Respondent’s case to be reconsidered
for appointment to the post of LDC or any other equivalent post
in which a vacancy may exist. [Paras 11, 15]
List of Keywords
Appointment; Lower Division Clerk (LDC); Andhra Pradesh
State Electricity Board (APSEB); Seniority List; List of eligible
candidates; Higher in the list of eligible candidates; Less man-
days; Initial recruitment cadre; Ex-casual labourers category;
Service certificate; Typewriting exam; Supernumerary post;
Suitable post; Contractor; Contractually appointed employees;
Qualified candidates; Minimum qualification; Review committee;
Workable gradation; Regular appointment; Absorbed on regular
basis; Future vacancy.
544 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4724 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.12.2020 of the High Court
for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in WA No. 150 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Sr. Adv., Sravan Kumar Karanam,
Ms. Shireesh Tyagi, Aniket Singh, Ms. P. Geetanjali.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Basa Mithun Shashank, Vikas Mehta.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from order dated 02.12.2020 by which
the division bench of the High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ
appeal against order dated 24.09.2018 wherein the learned single
judge directed the appellant to consider the respondent’s appointment
to the post of Lower Division Clerk1 or any other suitable post or any
other supernumerary post.
3. The short facts that are relevant are as follows. The Andhra Pradesh
State Electricity Board2 issued a notification dated 18.05.1997 to
fill up 50% vacancies in certain initial recruitment cadres, including
LDCs, from ex-casual labourers category. Clauses 5 and 6 of this
notification provided the guidelines for selection of candidates from
this category, including age, educational qualifications, seniority,
reservations, and selection committee. Under this policy, APSEB
issued an advertisement dated 11.03.2001 for appointment to the post
of LDC from ex-casual labourers category. The respondent sought
to claim benefit under this policy and applied but his application was
rejected on 21.01.2002 stating that his service certificate of contract
labour was not genuine. The appellant challenged this order by way
1 Hereinafter “LDC”.
2 Hereinafter “APSEB”.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 545
The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Telangana State Southern
Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Ch. Bhaskara Chary
of a writ petition and the High Court directed the appellant to verify
his certificate by order dated 24.12.2002.
4. Once again, by order dated 13.03.2003, the respondent’s case was
rejected as the contractor who issued the service certificate deposed
that the respondent did not work under him. Further, by order dated
14.04.2003, the appellant found that the respondent did not qualify
the typewriting exam and hence could not be considered for the
post. The respondent challenged the order dated 14.04.2003 in a writ
petition, which came to be disposed of by the High Court order dated
01.11.2004 holding that the typewriting qualification is not required
and therefore, directed the appellant to reconsider his case afresh.
5. Pursuant to the above-referred direction of the High Court, the
appellant’s Review Committee re-examined the respondent’s case,
and yet again rejected his appointment by order dated 28.03.2006.
This time, on a new ground that there is no vacancy in the BC-B
category in LDC cadre under the 50% quota earmarked for ex-
casual labourers, and that no BC-B candidate who has put in lesser
man-days than the respondent was appointed. On 15.11.2006, the
appellant issued a further notification withdrawing the policy dated
18.05.1997 w.e.f 15.09.2006, subject to the outcome of any pending
cases before the High Court or this Court.
6. The respondent filed a writ petition, only in the year 2008, challenging
the Review Committee’s order dated 28.03.2006. Initially, by order
dated 26.04.2017, the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition
on the ground of delay in approaching the High Court and in view of
the subsequent withdrawal of the policy. However, the respondent’s
review petition came to be allowed by the learned single judge by
order dated 24.09.2018 on the ground that the respondent’s name
appears at sl. no. 22 in the list of eligible candidates, while those at sl.
nos. 23 and 28 in the same list were appointed. The Court reasoned
that since those who were relatively less meritorious were considered
favourably pursuant to the High Court’s direction in a separate writ
petition, the respondent must be treated at par with them as he is in
a relatively better position. Hence, the Court directed the appellant
to consider the respondent’s case for appointment to the post of
LDC or any other suitable post or any suitable supernumerary post
in the same manner as the other case. The appellant’s writ appeal
came to be dismissed by the order impugned herein, on a similar
546 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
reasoning that the respondent’s case must be treated at par with
the other appointed candidates as he is higher in the list of eligible
candidates.
7. While issuing notice by the order dated 22.02.2021, this Court took
note of the appellant’s submission that the list relied on by the High
Court wherein the respondent appears at sl. no. 22 is not a seniority
list but only a list of eligible candidates, and also stayed the operation
of the impugned order. Further, by order dated 26.04.2024, this Court
directed the appellant to file an affidavit to the following effect:
(i) Whether there was any workable gradation/seniority list of the
contractually appointed employees like the respondent?
(ii) What was the criteria followed for regular appointment in terms
of the policy decision?
(iii) Whether candidates, who have served for less man-days than
the respondent on contractual basis, have been absorbed on
regular basis?
(iv) If so, whether the claim of the respondent was ever considered
along with such employees?
(v) Whether the respondent can be adjusted against a future
vacancy as and when arises without payment of any backwages?
8. Pursuant to this order, the appellant filed an affidavit dated 04.07.2024
furnishing the requisite information as follows:
(i) There is no workable gradation/seniority list of contractually
appointed workers like the respondent as they were not
employees. The list of qualified candidates was prepared based
on their service certificates from their respective contractors
and after taking man-days into consideration for conducting
interviews to the post of LDC.
(ii) That the qualifications for appointment under the notifications
dated 18.05.1997 and 11.03.2001 are stipulated in paragraphs
5 and 6 of the 18.05.1997 notification.
(iii) That 6 candidates with less man-days than the respondent have
been appointed under the 18.05.1997 notification. However, the
respondent only applied under the second notification issued
on 11.03.2001. Under this notification, M. Laxminarsu (BC-B),
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 547
The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Telangana State Southern
Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Ch. Bhaskara Chary
M. Bhaskar (BC-A), and A. Karunakar Reddy (OC), who have
served less man-days than the respondent, were appointed
pursuant to the High Court’s direction in certain other writ
petitions. However, the appointment of M. Laxminarsu (BC-B)
and M. Bhaskar (BC-A) was prior to the withdrawal of the policy.
Further, that as per the report of the Inspector of Police dated
21.01.2002, 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.
(iv) The respondent’s case was considered with similarly situated
persons. However, as his service certificate was not genuine,
he was not appointed. His appointment was rejected by the
Review Committee’s speaking order dated 28.03.2006.
(v) Since the respondent’s service certificate is not genuine, he
cannot be considered for appointment in any future post.
Further, all vacancies in all cadres are being filled through
direct recruitment.
9. We have heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG for the appellant
and Mr. Basa Mithun Shashank, learned counsel for the respondent.
10. The appellant’s case before us is that the list relied on by the High
Court is not a seniority list but only a list of candidates having minimum
qualification, who are eligible to attend the interview. However, upon
closer scrutiny, we must reject this submission for the following
reasons. First, this list has been placed before us by the respondent
and is titled “Seniority list of qualified candidates for the post of
L.D.C.s”. A perusal of the list also shows that candidates have been
arranged in accordance with the date of their first engagement, with
those engaged prior in time being placed higher on the list. Second,
in the affidavit dated 04.07.2024, the appellant admits that persons
with lesser man-days than the respondent were appointed to the
post under the 11.03.2001 notification, pursuant to the direction of
the High Court in certain other writ petitions. The relevant portion of
the affidavit is extracted below:
“It is submitted that six (6) candidates who have served
for less man-days than the respondent on contractual
basis, have been absorbed on regular basis in the 1st
Notification, to which notification the respondent was not
548 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
a candidate. Two more candidates namely M. Laxminarsu
(BC-B), M. Bhaskar (BC-A) and A. Karunakar Reddy (OC)
who have served for less man-days than the respondent on
contractual basis have been absorbed on regular basis in
the 2nd notification on the basis of the order of the Hon’ble
High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 26515 of 2004 and 858
of 2009. B.P.Ms. No.36 was withdrawn vide C.O.O (CGM-
HRD) Ms. No. 470, dt. 15.09.2006. It is pertinent to mention
here that Sri. M Laxminarsu (BC-B) and M. Bhaskar (BC-A)
were appointed prior to withdrawal of B.P.Ms. No.36.”
11. Upon contrasting the appointed candidates, as submitted by the
appellant, with the seniority list placed before us by the respondent,
we find that M. Bhaskar (BC-A) and M. Laxminarsu (BC-B) appear at
sl. nos. 23 and 28 respectively. 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.
12. 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. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the specific
directions of the learned single judge of the High Court disposing of
the writ and review petitions, which we have extracted hereinunder:
“7. …It is also an undisputed fact that the cases of the
said two persons, who are relatively less meritorious, were
considered and their cases were considered suitably by
the respondents. The petitioner in a way is requesting to
direct the respondents to consider his case in the same
manner and on par with cases of the above said two
person notwithstanding the orders in this writ petition.
In that view of the given to the respondents to consider
his case in the same manner and on par with the cases
of the writ petitioners is W.P. No. 2651 of 2004, as he is
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 549
The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Telangana State Southern
Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Ch. Bhaskara Chary
relatively in a better position in the list of than the above
said two persons, this court is of the considered view
that the review petition can be disposed of granting an
appropriate relief to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the review petition is disposed of directing
the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for
the post of LDC or any other suitable post or any suitable
supernumerary post in the same manner as was done in
the cases of the writ petitioners in W.P No. 265 of 2004
and on par with the said writ petitioners…”
13. It is evident from the above that the appellant was directed to
consider the case of the respondent in the context of the relative
facts indicated in the order.
14. The direction of the single judge, when challenged before the division
bench, culminated in a similar direction to the appellant as 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, requires
to be reconsidered. The relevant portion of the division bench’s order
is extracted below:
“5. … The petitioners in WP.No.2651 of 2004, who are also
similarly placed as that of the petitioner herein and found
at Sl.Nos.23 and 28 in the list, were regularized pursuant
to the order passed in the said writ petition. The petitioner
herein cannot be given a differential treatment. The case
of the petitioner deserves to be considered on par with the
petitioners in WP.No.2651 of 2004 for the reason that the
petitioner is placed high up in the list of qualified candidates
than the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition and that
the petitioner has got more man-days. The said fact was
brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge in the
review petition. Having considered the same, the learned
Single Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner has
to be treated on par with the petitioners in WP.No.2651
of 2004 and allowed the review petition directing the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to the
post of LDC or any other suitable post or any suitable
supernumerary post in the same manner as was done in
the cases of the writ petitioners in WP. No 2651 of 2024
550 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and on par with the said writ petitioners, notwithstanding
the order dated 26.04.2017.
6. In view of the above observations, this Court does not
find any merit in the writ appeal and the same is liable to
be dismissed. It is, hereby, dismissed.”
15. In view of the above, as we have rejected the contention of the
appellant that the list relied on by the High Court is not a seniority
list, 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. Considering that the present litigation was initiated in 2008,
we direct the appellant to pass orders as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of 6 weeks from today.
16. With these directions, we dispose of the present appeal.
17. No order as to costs.
18. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Appointment"Sign in to search