Supreme Court Upholds Integrated Seniority for LDCs and Typists: K. Anjaneyulu vs. T. Ashok Raju (24 July 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 24 July 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 717
Judges: Justice R. Banumathi and Justice A.S. Bopanna

Can the training period of Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) be counted for seniority when they are considered for promotion to Upper Division Clerks (UDCs)? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a dispute concerning the integrated seniority list of LDCs and Typists in the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB). The court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, which allowed the inclusion of the training period of LDCs for the purpose of seniority. This case revolves around the interpretation of service regulations and executive memos concerning the promotion of employees within the APSEB. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice A.S. Bopanna.

Case Background

Respondents No. 1 to 10 and 14 to 21 were appointed as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) in February 1991. They were required to undergo three months of training before being placed on probation. Both LDCs and Typists are considered part of the integrated feeder category for promotion to Upper Division Clerks (UDCs). A memo dated 16 July 2002, issued by Respondents No. 12 and 13, clarified that the training period for LDCs would be counted as part of their service for promotion to UDCs. This memo also stated that the integrated seniority list of LDCs, Record Clerks (RCs), and Typists would be drawn without disturbing their seniority assigned during their initial appointment. The appellants, who were also vying for promotion to UDCs, challenged this memo, arguing that it violated statutory regulations. They claimed that the seniority should be determined based on the date of joining after the training period, not the date of joining as a trainee.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants filed a writ petition challenging the memo dated 16 July 2002, arguing that it was illegal and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service Regulations. The learned Single Judge of the High Court ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that the integrated seniority list should be determined in accordance with Regulation 26 of the APSEB Service Regulations. The Single Judge also held that the memos dated 02 April 1994 and 16 July 2002 were merely executive instructions and could not be used to determine seniority. Aggrieved by this decision, respondents No. 4 to 8 appealed to the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the Single Judge, holding that the memo dated 02 April 1994 was valid and the memo dated 16 July 2002 was a follow-up to the earlier memo. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Regulation 26 of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service Regulations, which deals with promotions to the post of UDC. The appellants contended that the seniority should be determined based on the date of joining the post after completion of training, as per Regulation 26. However, the court noted that Regulation 26 does not specifically address the issue of inter se seniority between different categories of employees like LDCs and Typists. The court also considered Section 79 of the Electricity Supply Act, which empowers the Board to issue regulations. The memo dated 02 April 1994 was issued by the Board under this power. The court also noted that the memo dated 16 July 2002 was only a follow up of the memo dated 02 April 1994.

The relevant portion of the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is as follows:

“27.To sum up there is no regulation dealing with integrated seniority list either under the general regulations and special regulations, therefore, under Memo dated 02.04.1994 the erstwhile APSEB issued guidelines for preparation of integrated seniority list. We do not see how this conflicts with Regulation 26. A comprehensive reading of Regulations 10(8)(a), 23(a) and 8 would make apparently clear that the appointing authority has to fix the date of commencement of probation while integrating various cadres and preparing inter se seniority list. It did so by including the training period also by exercising its statutory powers under Regulation 25(a) and (b). The Board has to prepare the list of approved candidates for appointment or promotion. When there is reasonable /rationale basis for exercising the discretion under Regulation 25(a) by appointing authority, without contravening any of the Regulations, the list cannot be invalidated on the ground that the procedure contemplated under Section 79(c) of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (in not publishing in the Gazette) was not followed.”

Arguments

The appellants argued that the seniority for promotion to UDCs should be determined strictly according to Regulation 26 of the APSEB Service Regulations. They contended that the memo dated 16 July 2002, which included the training period for LDCs in the seniority calculation, was illegal and contrary to the regulations. The appellants argued that the date of joining after completion of training should be the basis for seniority. They also argued that the memos dated 02 April 1994 and 16 July 2002 were executive instructions and could not override the statutory regulations.

The respondents argued that there was no specific regulation dealing with the integrated seniority of LDCs and Typists. They contended that the memo dated 02 April 1994, issued under the powers conferred by Section 79 of the Electricity Supply Act, provided the necessary guidelines for preparing the integrated seniority list. They further argued that the memo dated 16 July 2002 was merely a follow-up to the earlier memo and was necessary for the proper implementation of the integrated seniority list. They also argued that counting the training period for seniority was justified, as LDCs in the accounts section and other sections were required to undergo training before commencing probation.

The innovativeness of the argument by the respondents was that there was no specific regulation dealing with the integrated seniority of LDCs and Typists and hence the memo dated 02 April 1994 was valid.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the central issue was:

• Whether the training period of LDCs should be included for the purpose of seniority when considering promotions to UDCs, and whether the memos dated 02 April 1994 and 16 July 2002 were valid for this purpose.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The court considered the following authorities:

• Section 79 of the Electricity Supply Act: The court noted that this section empowers the Board to issue regulations, and the memo dated 02 April 1994 was issued under this power.
• Regulation 26 of the APSEB Service Regulations: The court observed that this regulation does not deal with inter se seniority between different categories of employees.
• Memos dated 02 April 1994 and 16 July 2002: The court held that the memo dated 02 April 1994 was valid, and the memo dated 16 July 2002 was a valid follow-up.

Judgment

The authorities were viewed as follows:

• Section 79 of the Electricity Supply Act: The court relied on this provision to validate the memo dated 02 April 1994, which was issued by the Board in exercise of its powers under this section.
• Regulation 26 of the APSEB Service Regulations: The court observed that this regulation does not deal with inter se seniority, and therefore, the Board was justified in issuing the memo dated 02 April 1994 to clarify the issue.
• Memos dated 02 April 1994 and 16 July 2002: The court held that these memos were valid, with the latter being a follow-up to the former, and were necessary for the proper implementation of the integrated seniority list.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that there was no specific regulation dealing with the integrated seniority of LDCs and Typists. The court also considered that the memo dated 02 April 1994 was issued under the powers conferred by Section 79 of the Electricity Supply Act. The court reasoned that including the training period for seniority was a reasonable approach, as LDCs in certain sections were required to undergo training before being placed on probation. The court also noted that the memo dated 16 July 2002 was merely a follow-up to the earlier memo and was necessary for the proper implementation of the integrated seniority list.

The court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The court did not consider any alternative interpretation. The final decision was based on the validity of the memos and the reasonableness of including the training period for seniority.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, stating that there was no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The court reasoned that the memo dated 02 April 1994 was valid as it was issued under the powers conferred by Section 79 of the Electricity Supply Act, and the memo dated 16 July 2002 was a valid follow-up to the earlier memo. The court also noted that including the training period for seniority was justified.

The court quoted the following from the judgment of the High Court:

“27.To sum up there is no regulation dealing with integrated seniority list either under the general regulations and special regulations, therefore, under Memo dated 02.04.1994 the erstwhile APSEB issued guidelines for preparation of integrated seniority list. We do not see how this conflicts with Regulation 26. A comprehensive reading of Regulations 10(8)(a), 23(a) and 8 would make apparently clear that the appointing authority has to fix the date of commencement of probation while integrating various cadres and preparing inter se seniority list. It did so by including the training period also by exercising its statutory powers under Regulation 25(a) and (b). The Board has to prepare the list of approved candidates for appointment or promotion. When there is reasonable /rationale basis for exercising the discretion under Regulation 25(a) by appointing authority, without contravening any of the Regulations, the list cannot be invalidated on the ground that the procedure contemplated under Section 79(c) of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (in not publishing in the Gazette) was not followed.”

There were no minority opinions in this judgment. The bench comprised two judges, both of whom agreed with the final decision.

The court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of the relevant regulations and the validity of the executive memos. The court emphasized that the memos were issued under the powers conferred by the Electricity Supply Act and that including the training period for seniority was a reasonable approach.

The judgment has implications for future cases involving integrated seniority lists in similar contexts. It clarifies that executive memos can be used to determine inter se seniority when there are no specific regulations dealing with the issue.

There were no new doctrines or legal principles introduced in this judgment. The court primarily applied existing legal principles and interpreted the relevant regulations and memos.

Key Takeaways

• The training period of LDCs can be included for the purpose of seniority when considering promotions to UDCs.
• Executive memos issued under the powers conferred by the Electricity Supply Act are valid for determining inter se seniority when there are no specific regulations.
• The integrated seniority list of LDCs and Typists should be prepared by including the training period of LDCs.

This judgment clarifies the position regarding the inclusion of training periods for seniority and validates the use of executive memos in the absence of specific regulations.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that in the absence of a specific regulation dealing with inter se seniority, the Board can issue memos under the powers conferred by Section 79 of the Electricity Supply Act. The judgment also clarifies that the training period of LDCs can be included for the purpose of seniority. There is no specific change in the previous position of law, but this judgment clarifies the position in the context of the given facts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, affirming the validity of the integrated seniority list of LDCs and Typists, which included the training period of LDCs for the purpose of seniority. The court held that the memos issued by the APSEB were valid and that there was no specific regulation prohibiting the inclusion of the training period for seniority. This judgment clarifies the position regarding the inclusion of training periods for seniority and validates the use of executive memos in the absence of specific regulations.