LexTHE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION, TELANGANA STATE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. & ORS. versus CH. BHASKARA CHARY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.