Supreme Court Upholds Appointments of Junior Linemen, Sets Aside High Court Order: K. Amarnath Reddy vs. A.P.S.P.D.C.L. (25 February 2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 February 2019

Citation: Not Available (Non-Reportable Judgment)

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

Can a High Court re-examine appointments already approved by another Division Bench of the same High Court? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of Junior Linemen in Andhra Pradesh. This case revolves around the validity of appointments made to these positions in the Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation (A.P. TRANSCO) and its distribution companies (DISCOMS), specifically regarding the selection process and the number of posts filled.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, delivered the judgment. The court overturned a High Court decision that had re-examined the appointments of Junior Linemen, which had already been approved by another Division Bench of the same High Court.

Case Background

The case originated from the Andhra Pradesh government’s decision on 07 June 2006, to fill 7114 Junior Linemen posts on a contract basis in the four DISCOMS. The A.P. TRANSCO and the DISCOMS issued separate notifications, with specific conditions for eligibility, including ITI qualification, residence in the notified area, and pole climbing skills.

A writ petition was filed in the High Court challenging the conditions of the notification, specifically the requirement of residence in the notified area and the selection based on ITI marks. The High Court directed that the unit of appointment should be the Operation/Circle/District and that weightage should be given to experienced candidates.

A revised notification was issued on 20 October 2006, giving preference to contract laborers based on their date of birth, which was again challenged in the High Court. The High Court held this preference to be illegal and arbitrary but allowed the existing appointees to continue till the end of their contract. The High Court also directed the authorities to consider a structured formula to give preference to the contract laborers.

The A.P. TRANSCO and the DISCOMS filed Writ Appeals, which were partly allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench directed the appointment of all writ petitioners who had applied and fulfilled the eligibility criteria, irrespective of the condition of preference based on the date of birth. The Division Bench also directed that these appointees would be entitled to all benefits at par with the already appointed Junior Linemen, including regularization of their services.

The services of the 7114 Junior Linemen were regularized on 28 December 2010, with effect from 03 October 2008. Subsequently, the government permitted the filling of another 7319 vacant posts of Junior Linemen on 15 June 2011.

Several writ petitions were filed in the High Court challenging the appointments beyond the 7114 posts advertised in 2006 and the preference given to experienced candidates.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the High Court directed that the unit of appointment should be the Operation/Circle/District and that weightage should be given to experienced candidates. Later, the High Court declared the preference given to the earlier date of birth as illegal and arbitrary. However, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the directions regarding the method of preference and the restriction of appointments to one year.

The Division Bench, based on the submission of the Advocate General, directed the appointment of all writ petitioners who were not selected due to the condition related to the date of birth. This direction was also extended to those who did not approach the High Court.

The High Court, in its judgment dated 14 March 2012, set aside the selections made contrary to its declarations and also set aside the selection of candidates against the subsequent vacancies of 7319 posts. The High Court directed a review of the entire selection process and the filling of the 7319 posts by issuing fresh notifications.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the notifications issued by the A.P. TRANSCO and the DISCOMS, which specified the conditions for eligibility for the post of Junior Linemen. These conditions included:

• ITI qualification
• Residence in the notified area
• Pole climbing skills

The revised notification dated 20 October 2006, introduced a preference for contract laborers based on their date of birth. The High Court struck down this condition as illegal and arbitrary.

Arguments

The arguments in the case revolved around the validity of the selection process for the 7114 posts of Junior Linemen and the subsequent appointments made beyond these posts.

• The petitioners challenged the condition of residence in the notified area and the selection based on ITI marks.
• The petitioners also challenged the preference given to contract laborers based on their date of birth in the revised notification dated 20 October 2006.
• The respondents argued that the appointments made beyond the 7114 posts were in compliance with the directions issued by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No.1434 of 2008 and Batch.
• The respondents also submitted that the appointments were made to avoid disruption of essential services.

The learned Advocate General, on the basis of written instructions from the DISCOMS, submitted that the writ petitioners who were adversely affected by Clause 6 (iv) (c) of the revised notification which relates to preference being given to the earlier date of birth can be accommodated.

The submission of the learned Advocate General was that the services of all the 7114 Junior Linemen have to be terminated if Clause 6 (iv) (c) of the revised notification dated 20.10.2006 is struck down which would lead to serious disruption of essential services.

Ms. Prerna Singh, learned counsel appearing for the persons who are similarly situated to those who were directed to be appointed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1434 of 2008 and Batch submitted that some of the eligible candidates have not been appointed till date.

Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the DISCOMS fairly submitted that if persons who applied for selection as Junior Lineman in 2006 were not appointed due to condition 6(iv) (c) of the revised notification dated 20.10.2006, they shall be considered for appointment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in re-examining the selections made to 7114 posts of Junior Linemen, which had already been approved by another Division Bench of the same High Court.
2. Whether the appointments made beyond the 7114 posts that were advertised were valid.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal 1434 of 2008 and Batch, which approved the appointments to 7114 posts of Junior Linemen.

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Condition No. 6 (iv) (c) of the revised notification dated 20.10.2006, which relates to preference being given to the earlier date of birth.

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, holding that the High Court had erred in re-examining the selections made to 7114 posts of Junior Linemen, which had already been approved by another Division Bench of the same High Court. The Supreme Court also held that the appointments made beyond the 7114 posts were valid as they were made based on the submission of the Advocate General and the directions of the Division Bench to avoid disruption of essential services.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Writ Appeal 1434 of 2008 and Batch: The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a serious error in re-examining the selections to 7114 posts of Junior Linemen and other appointments made beyond the posts that were advertised, made pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.06.2006/20.10.2006. The judgment of the High Court in Writ Appeal No.1434 of 2008 and Batch became final and appointments were made pursuant to the directions issued.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that a Division Bench of the High Court had already approved the appointments to 7114 posts of Junior Linemen. The Court also took into consideration the submission of the Advocate General that the appointments beyond the 7114 posts were made to avoid disruption of essential services. The Court also considered that the services of those appointed were regularized, and any interference with such appointments would cause irreparable loss to them.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was based on the following logical steps:

The Supreme Court did not consider any alternative interpretations. The Court’s decision was based on the fact that the High Court had already approved the appointments and that the appointments beyond the advertised posts were made to avoid disruption of essential services.

The Supreme Court’s decision was clear: the High Court should not have re-examined the appointments that had already been approved. The appointments made to avoid disruption of essential services were also upheld.

The reasons for the decision were:

• The High Court had already approved the appointments to 7114 posts of Junior Linemen.
• The appointments beyond the 7114 posts were made to avoid disruption of essential services.
• The services of those appointed were regularized, and any interference with such appointments would cause irreparable loss to them.

The Supreme Court did not have any dissenting opinions.

The Supreme Court’s decision has implications for future cases where a High Court seeks to re-examine appointments that have already been approved by another Division Bench of the same High Court. The decision also highlights the importance of avoiding disruption of essential services.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this case.

The court quoted from the judgment:

“The High Court committed a serious error in re-examining the selections to 7114 posts of Junior Linemen and other appointments made beyond the posts that were advertised, made pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.06.2006/20.10.2006.”

“The judgment of the High Court in Writ Appeal No.1434 of 2008 and Batch became final and appointments were made pursuant to the directions issued.”

“Keeping in mind that appointments to the posts of Junior Linemen have been made long back and the services of those appointed were regularised, any interference with such appointments will cause irreparable loss to them apart from adversely affecting the smooth functioning of the A.P . TRANSCO and the DISCOMS.”

Key Takeaways

• High Courts should not re-examine appointments that have already been approved by another Division Bench of the same High Court.
• Appointments made to avoid disruption of essential services can be upheld.
• The regularization of services of appointees is an important factor to consider.
• The judgment emphasizes the need for judicial restraint in interfering with appointments that have been made and regularized.
• Future recruitments should be strictly in accordance with the law.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that if persons who applied for selection as Junior Lineman in 2006 were not appointed due to condition 6(iv)(c) of the revised notification dated 20.10.2006, they shall be considered for appointment.

The Supreme Court also directed that any future recruitment to the post of Junior Lineman shall be done strictly in accordance with the law.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court should not re-examine appointments that have already been approved by another Division Bench of the same High Court. The Court also held that appointments made to avoid disruption of essential services can be upheld. There was no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in re-examining the selections made to 7114 posts of Junior Linemen, which had already been approved by another Division Bench of the same High Court. The Court also held that the appointments made beyond the 7114 posts were valid as they were made based on the submission of the Advocate General and the directions of the Division Bench to avoid disruption of essential services. The Supreme Court directed that if persons who applied for selection as Junior Lineman in 2006 were not appointed due to condition 6(iv)(c) of the revised notification dated 20.10.2006, they shall be considered for appointment.