1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  No(s).8321-8324 OF 2011

K.ANJANEYULU & ORS.                                Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

T. ASHOK RAJU & ORS.                               Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T BANUMATHI, J.:

(1) Respondents No.1 to 10 and 14 to 21 were appointed as LDCs

in February 1991.  They were required to undergo three months

training  prior  to  being  put  on  probation.   Both  LDCs  and

Typists are in the integrated feeder category for promotion as

UDCs. Respondents No.12 and 13 issued a Memo dated 16.07.2002

clarifying  that  the  training  period  in  respect  of  LDCs/RCs

would be reckoned as the period in service for promotion as

UDCs.  In the said Memo dated 16.07.2002, it was stated that as

per the orders issued in Memo dated 02.04.1994 by the Andhra

Pradesh  State  Electricity  Board  (APSEB),  the  integrated

seniority  list  of  LDCs/RCs/Typists  would  be  drawn  without

disturbing  their  seniority  assigned  during  selection  for

appointment  to  that  post.   LDCs/RCs/Typists  are  different

categories  and  having  separate  seniority  lists  for  each

category.   In  the  said  Memo  it  was  clarified  that  for

integrating their seniority, the date of joining as Trainee

LDCs/RCs  shall  be  taken  as  criteria  for  their  integrated

2

seniority without disturbing their relative seniority in their

respective cadres.  It was stated in the Memo dated 16.07.2002

that the earlier Memo dated 02.04.1994 holds good as it was

issued  for  the  purpose  of  integrated  seniority  of

LDCs/RCs/Typists for considering their cases for promotion by

taking into account the training period of LDC/RCs for the

purpose of seniority. Grievance of the appellants is that they

are superseded by the respondents in the matter of promotion to

the  category  of  UDCs  on  the  basis  of  reckoning  inter  se

seniority between the category of typists and that of LDCs.

The appellants filed writ petition praying that the Memo dated

16.07.2002 be declared as illegal and contrary to the statutory

regulations  and  to  direct  the  respondents  to  prepare  an

integrated seniority list of LDCs and typists in accordance

with  Regulation  26  of  AP  State  Electricity  Board  Service

Regulations for promotion to the post of UDC Division clerks.

(2) Learned Single Judge vide Order dated 01.07.2004 came to

the conclusion that the integrated seniority list of LDCs and

the Typists would have to be determined in conformity with

Regulation 26 read with stipulations in Annexure-IV.  Learned

Single  Judge  further  held  that  Memo  dated  16.07.2002  was

clearly inconsistent with the legal position as contemplated by

Regulation 26 and the Memos dated 02.04.1994 and 16.07.2002 are

only  executive  instructions  and  based  on  such  executive

instructions the integrated seniority cannot be worked out.

(3) Aggrieved by the judgment passed by learned Single Judge,

respondents no.4 to 8 preferred appeals before the Division

3

Bench of the High Court in W.A. No(s).1285 of 2004, 2113 of

2004 and 2114 of 2004 which came to be allowed by the impugned

judgment dated 14.07.2006.

(4) We  have  heard  Mr.  Krishna  Kr.  Singh,  learned  counsel

appearing for the appellant and Mr. S. Sadasiva Reddy, learned

counsel appearing for the respondents.  We have also heard Mr.

D. Abhinav Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.11

to  13  and  perused  the  impugned  judgment(s)  as  also  the

materials on record.

(5) As per MS 57, on 14.05.1992 L.D.Cs, Typists and Computer

Operators  were  added  to  category  4(b)  and  since  then  the

applicability  of  Regulation  26  became  impossible.  In  that

context,  the  Board  has  issued  a  Memo  dated  02.04.1994.

According to the official correspondents without the said Memo

the  combined  seniority  could  not  have  been  drawn.  As  per

Section 79 of the Electricity Supply Act, the Board has power

to issue regulations in the form of notifications. The Memo

dated 02.04.1994 was issued by the Board in exercise of its

power  conferred  on  it  under  Section  79  of  the  Electricity

Supply Act. The Memo dated 16.02.2002 issued by the NPDC was

only follow up of the said approved memo dated 02.04.1994 and

solely made for proper implementation of the same which was

required for making of an integrated seniority list.

(6). The grievance of the appellants is that the seniority has

to be fixed as per Regulation 26. Regulation 26 does not deals

with inter se seniority. As far as L.D.Cs are concerned, L.D.Cs

posted in the account section and various other Sections are

4

required to undergo training before commencement of probation

as against others posted to General and Personnel Sections.

Merely because they were required to undergo training, their

seniority cannot be counted from the date they have joined post

after completion of training.  If their date of the joining in

the post after completion of training is taken into account for

counting of their seniority it would cause serious hardship to

them.

(7) In the impugned Judgment, the High Court has held that

there is no regulation dealing with integrated seniority list

either under the general regulations or the special regulations

and,  therefore,  Memo  dated  02.04.1994  was  issued  by  the

erstwhile APSEB for the preparation of the integrated seniority

list. The Memo dated 16.07.2002 is only a follow up of Memo

dated  02.04.1994  which  was  the  clarification  issued  by  the

erstwhile APSEB.

(8) Relevant portion of the impugned judgment of the Division

Bench of the High is extracted hereunder:

“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

5

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.”

(9)   We are in agreement with the view taken by the Division

Bench and we do not find any ground to interfere with the

impugned order(s).  The appeals are accordingly dismissed.  

..........................J.                 (R. BANUMATHI)

..........................J.         (A.S. BOPANNA)

NEW DELHI, JULY  24, 2019.