Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 02, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 428

Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha J., Joymalya Bagchi J.

Can a candidate be denied a position if others with less experience were appointed based on a seniority list? The Supreme Court of India addressed this issue in a case involving the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. and an applicant for a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) position. The core question was whether the High Court was correct in directing the power company to reconsider the applicant’s appointment, given that individuals lower on the seniority list had been appointed.

The Supreme Court, in this judgment, examined the validity of a seniority list and the criteria for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC). The bench, comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

In 1997, the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) issued a notification on May 18 to fill 50% of vacancies in initial recruitment cadres, including LDCs, from the ex-casual labourers category. This notification outlined guidelines for selecting candidates, considering age, educational qualifications, seniority, and reservations.

On March 11, 2001, APSEB advertised for the post of LDC under this policy. Ch. Bhaskara Chary applied, seeking benefits as an ex-casual labourer. However, his application was rejected on January 21, 2002, because his service certificate was deemed not genuine.

Chary challenged this rejection via a writ petition, and the High Court ordered the appellant to verify his certificate on December 24, 2002.

On March 13, 2003, Chary’s case was again rejected after the contractor who allegedly issued the service certificate stated that Chary had not worked under him. Additionally, on April 14, 2003, the appellant determined that Chary did not qualify in the typewriting exam, a requirement for the post. Chary challenged the April 14, 2003, order in another writ petition. The High Court, on November 1, 2004, ruled that the typewriting qualification was not necessary and directed the appellant to reconsider his case.

Following the High Court’s direction, the appellant’s Review Committee re-examined Chary’s case but rejected his appointment on March 28, 2006, citing that there was no vacancy in the BC-B category in the LDC cadre under the 50% quota for ex-casual labourers. The committee also noted that no BC-B candidate with fewer man-days than Chary had been appointed.

On November 15, 2006, the appellant withdrew the policy dated May 18, 1997, effective September 15, 2006, but made it subject to the outcome of any pending cases in the High Court or the Supreme Court.

Chary filed a writ petition in 2008, challenging the Review Committee’s order of March 28, 2006. The single judge initially dismissed the petition on April 26, 2017, due to the delay and the subsequent withdrawal of the policy. However, Chary’s review petition was allowed on September 24, 2018, because his name appeared at serial no. 22 on the list of eligible candidates, while those at serial nos. 23 and 28 had been appointed. The court directed the appellant to consider Chary’s case for appointment to the post of LDC or any other suitable post.

See also  Supreme Court Directs Expedited Trial in Property Dispute: Akriti Land Con Pvt. Ltd. vs. Krishna Bhargava (2017)

The appellant’s writ appeal was dismissed, with the court stating that Chary’s case should be treated on par with other appointed candidates because he was higher on the list of eligible candidates.

Timeline

Date Event
May 18, 1997 APSEB issued a notification to fill 50% vacancies from ex-casual labourers.
March 11, 2001 APSEB issued an advertisement for LDC posts from ex-casual labourers.
January 21, 2002 Ch. Bhaskara Chary’s application was rejected due to a non-genuine service certificate.
December 24, 2002 High Court directed the appellant to verify Chary’s certificate.
March 13, 2003 Chary’s case was rejected again as the contractor denied Chary worked under him.
April 14, 2003 Appellant found Chary unqualified due to not passing the typewriting exam.
November 1, 2004 High Court directed reconsideration of Chary’s case, waiving the typewriting qualification.
March 28, 2006 Review Committee rejected Chary’s appointment due to no vacancy in the BC-B category.
November 15, 2006 Appellant withdrew the policy dated May 18, 1997, effective September 15, 2006.
2008 Chary filed a writ petition challenging the Review Committee’s order.
April 26, 2017 Single judge dismissed the writ petition due to delay and policy withdrawal.
September 24, 2018 Review petition allowed, directing consideration of Chary’s case for appointment.
February 22, 2021 Supreme Court issued notice, staying the High Court’s order.
April 26, 2024 Supreme Court directed the appellant to file an affidavit with specific details.
July 4, 2024 Appellant filed an affidavit providing the requested information.
April 02, 2025 Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, directing reconsideration of Chary’s appointment.

Course of Proceedings

The case initially involved a writ petition filed by Ch. Bhaskara Chary challenging the rejection of his application for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC). The single judge initially dismissed the writ petition due to delay and the subsequent withdrawal of the policy. However, the review petition was allowed, directing consideration of Chary’s case for appointment, given that individuals lower on the eligibility list had been appointed.

The appellant’s writ appeal was dismissed by the division bench, which found it appropriate that Chary’s case be reconsidered, especially in light of the appointment of candidates at serial numbers 23 and 28 in the eligibility list.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the notification issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) on May 18, 1997, which aimed to fill 50% of vacancies in initial recruitment cadres, including LDCs, from the ex-casual labourers category. Clauses 5 and 6 of this notification provided the guidelines for the selection of candidates, including age, educational qualifications, seniority, reservations, and selection committee.

The subsequent notification dated March 11, 2001, advertised for appointment to the post of LDC from the ex-casual labourers category, further elaborating on the conditions and qualifications required for the position.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

  • ✓ The list relied upon by the High Court is not a seniority list but a list of candidates with minimum qualifications eligible to attend the interview.
  • ✓ The respondent’s service certificate is not genuine, as the contractor who issued it deposed that the respondent did not work under him.
  • ✓ There are no vacancies against which the respondent can be appointed.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds Penalty and Interest Under Gujarat Sales Tax Act: State of Gujarat vs. M/s Saw Pipes Ltd. (2023) INSC 376

Respondent’s Arguments:

  • ✓ The list in question is indeed a seniority list, as it is titled “Seniority list of qualified candidates for the post of L.D.C.s” and candidates are arranged according to the date of their first engagement.
  • ✓ Individuals with lesser man-days and lower in the seniority list have been appointed, thus the respondent’s case should be considered on par with them.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

  1. Whether the list relied on by the High Court is a seniority list or merely a list of eligible candidates.
  2. Whether the respondent’s case should be considered on par with those who were lower in the seniority list but were appointed.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue How the Court Dealt with It Brief Reasons
Whether the list relied on by the High Court is a seniority list or merely a list of eligible candidates The Court rejected the appellant’s submission that the list was not a seniority list. The list was titled “Seniority list of qualified candidates for the post of L.D.C.s,” and candidates were arranged according to the date of their first engagement.
Whether the respondent’s case should be considered on par with those who were lower in the seniority list but were appointed The Court agreed with the High Court’s reasoning. Candidates with lesser man-days than the respondent, who were placed relatively lower in the seniority list, have been appointed.

Authorities

The judgment refers to the directions and findings of the High Court in previous writ petitions related to similarly situated candidates. Specifically, it mentions:

  • ✓ Writ Petition Nos. 26515 of 2004 and 858 of 2009: These cases involved candidates M. Laxminarsu (BC-B) and M. Bhaskar (BC-A) who had served for less man-days than the respondent but were absorbed on a regular basis based on the High Court’s orders.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Submission Party How the Court Treated It
The list relied upon by the High Court is not a seniority list. Appellant Rejected. The Court found that the list was indeed a seniority list.
The respondent’s service certificate is not genuine. Appellant The Court noted that this issue could be considered during reconsideration.
There are no vacancies against which the respondent can be appointed. Appellant The Court noted that this issue could be considered during reconsideration.
The list in question is a seniority list, and individuals with lesser man-days have been appointed. Respondent Accepted. The Court agreed that the respondent’s case should be considered on par with those appointed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that candidates with fewer man-days and lower positions in the seniority list had been appointed based on previous High Court orders. The Court emphasized the need for consistent treatment of similarly situated individuals.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Reason Percentage
Consistency with previous High Court orders 40%
Fair treatment of candidates 30%
Validity of the seniority list 30%

Fact:Law Ratio

Category Percentage
Fact (consideration of factual aspects) 60%
Law (legal considerations) 40%
See also  Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Teacher with Unrecognized Degree: Pramod Kumar vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (2008)

Logical Reasoning

High Court directs consideration of candidates with fewer man-days
↓
Candidates with fewer man-days are appointed
↓
Respondent is higher on the seniority list but not appointed
↓
Supreme Court directs reconsideration of Respondent’s case

Key Takeaways

  • ✓ Seniority lists must be accurately considered in appointment processes.
  • ✓ Similarly situated candidates should be treated consistently.
  • ✓ Courts may direct reconsideration of appointments to ensure fairness.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellant to reconsider the case of the respondent for appointment to the post of LDC or any other equivalent post in which a vacancy may exist. The appellant may take into account other aspects of the matter, such as the genuineness of the service certificate and the availability of vacancies, and pass appropriate orders. The Court directed the appellant to pass orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that candidates who are higher on a valid seniority list should be considered for appointment on par with those who are lower on the list but have been appointed based on previous court orders. This judgment reinforces the importance of seniority and equal treatment in appointment processes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by directing the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. to reconsider the appointment of Ch. Bhaskara Chary to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC), taking into account the seniority list and the fact that individuals with fewer man-days had been appointed based on previous High Court orders. The Court emphasized the need for consistent treatment of similarly situated candidates and directed the appellant to pass orders within 6 weeks.

Category

  • Service Law
    • Appointment
    • Seniority
    • Equal Opportunity
  • High Court Orders
    • Compliance
    • Judicial Review

FAQ

  1. What does this judgment mean for government job applicants?

    This judgment emphasizes that seniority lists must be accurately considered during the appointment process. If you are higher on a valid seniority list, you should be considered on par with those lower on the list who have been appointed.

  2. What if my service certificate is questioned?

    The genuineness of your service certificate can be a valid consideration during the appointment process. Ensure all your documents are authentic and verifiable.

  3. What if there are no current vacancies?

    The availability of vacancies is a valid consideration. However, authorities should explore the possibility of creating a supernumerary post if appropriate.

  4. How does this judgment affect equal opportunity?

    This judgment reinforces the principle of equal opportunity by ensuring that similarly situated candidates are treated consistently and fairly.

Source: Telangana Power vs. Chary