Non -Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos._2049-2158 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.15001-15110 of 2013

]

K. Amarnath Reddy & Ors.        .... Appellants

Versus

Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.P.D.C.L. & Ors. Etc. Etc.         

….Respondents W I T H  

Civil Appeal Nos. 2159-2268 of 2019 [ Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 15114-15223 of 2013]

Civil Appeal Nos.2269-2272 of 2019 [ Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 25586-25589 of 2013]

Contempt Petition (C) Nos.570-679 of 2018 In SLP(C) No. 15001-15110 of 2013

Contempt Petition (C) Nos.1773-1776 of 2017 In SLP (C) No.25586-25589 of 2013

Diary No.18811 of 2018 Diary No.26419 of 2018

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.  

1. The  validity  of  appointment  to  the  posts  of  Junior

Linemen in the Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation

1 | P a g e

(A.P. TRANSCO) and the four Andhra Pradesh Distribution

Companies (DISCOMS) in the erstwhile combined State of

Andhra Pradesh is in issue in these appeals.  

2. On 07.06.2006,  the Special  Chief  Secretary,  Energy

Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh permitted the

Chairman  &  Managing  Director,  A.P.  TRANSCO  and  the

Chairpersons,  Andhra  Pradesh  Power  Coordination

Committee (APPCC) to fill up 7114 posts of Junior Linemen

on contract basis in the four DISCOMS duly following the

rule of reservation.   The appointment on contract basis

was  to  be  for  a  period  of  one  year  which  would  cease

automatically after the said period.   Pursuant to the said

permission granted by the Government, the A.P. TRANSCO

and  the  four  DISCOMS  advertised  7114  vacancies  and

called for applications from the eligible candidates for the

post of Junior Lineman vide separate notifications.  For the

sake  of  convenience,  the  conditions  prescribed  in  the

notifications,  issued  by  Andhra  Pradesh  Central  Power

Distribution Company Limited (APCPDCL) are referred to in

the judgment.  The permission granted by the Government

contained certain  conditions  which  were  included in  the

advertisement  dated  08.06.2006.    ITI  qualification,

2 | P a g e

residence  in  the  notified  area,  and  pole  climbing  were

made compulsory as per Clauses 7 (i), (ii), and (iii) of the

advertisement.  According to Clause 7 (iv), all candidates

who fulfilled the compulsory conditions in sub clauses (i),

(ii), and (iii) of Clause 7 would be considered for selection

on  the  basis  of  the  marks  obtained  by  them  in  ITI

examination.   A writ petition was filed in the High Court by

the existing contract labourers questioning Clauses 7 (ii)

and  (iv)  of  the  advertisement/notification  dated

08.06.2006 by which residence in  the notified area was

made compulsory and selection was based on the marks

obtained  in  ITI  examination.    The  writ  petition  was

disposed of with a direction that Operation/ Circle/District

shall be treated as a unit of appointment without reference

to the restriction imposed under Clause 7 (ii).   There was a

further  direction  that  weightage  should  be  given  to

experienced candidates.   

3. A  revised  notification  was  issued  on  20.10.2006  in

which the criteria for selection and appointment as Junior

Lineman was altered.  The contract labourers were given

preference  for  selection  over  the  fresh  candidates.

Amongst the contract labourers, selection was to be on the

3 | P a g e

basis of earlier date of birth.  The preference given to age

in  the  revised  notification  was  the  subject  matter  of

challenge in the High Court.  The High Court allowed the

writ petition by holding that the absolute preference given

to the earlier date of birth irrespective of the merit of the

candidates in the qualifying examination and the length of

service as illegal and arbitrary.   However, the High Court

refused to interfere with the selections already made as

they were contractual in nature and were made only for a

period of  one year.   Being aware that  setting aside the

appointments would result in serious dislocation of work,

the selected candidates were permitted to continue till the

expiry  of  the  original  contract.   The  authorities  were

directed  not  to  extend  the  contract  under  any

circumstance.   A fresh selection process was directed to

be initiated and further direction was given by the High

Court to  consider  the feasibility of  evolving a structured

formula  to  give  preference  to  the  contract  labourers  by

awarding one mark for  each year  of  completed service.

Rule  of  reservation  was  to  be  strictly  followed  and  the

appointments  were  to  be  made  only  for  one  year.

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the A.P. TRANSCO and the

4 | P a g e

DISCOMS filed  Writ  Appeal  No.1434  of  2008  and Batch.

The directions issued by the learned Single Judge regarding

the  method  of  preference  to  be  given  to  the  contract

labourers  and the appointments  to  be restricted to  only

one year were set aside by the Division Bench of the High

Court.   However,  the  Division  Bench  approved  the

directions pertaining to reservation.   

4. During the course of arguments in the Writ Appeals,

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.   In

order to obviate such dislocation, a decision was taken to

appoint and absorb all the writ petitioners who could not

be selected in view of the Clause 6 (iv) (c) of the revised

notification.  On the basis of the statement of the learned

5 | P a g e

Advocate  General,  the  Division  Bench  directed

appointment of all the writ petitioners who had submitted

their  applications  pursuant  to  the  notifications  dated

08.06.2006/ 20.10.2006 and who could not be selected in

view of the condition mentioned in Clause 6 (iv) (c) of the

revised  notification  dated  20.10.2006.   It  is  relevant  to

note that the said direction was made applicable even to

those candidates  who did  not  approach the  High  Court.

The Division Bench observed that all  those selected and

appointed pursuant to the judgment shall be entitled to all

the  benefits  at  par  with  the  persons  who  have  already

been appointed as Junior Linemen.  It was further held that

they were entitled to the regularization of their services as

well.  

5. The  services  of  7114  Junior  Linemen  who  were

appointed on contract basis pursuant to the notifications

dated  08.06.2006/  20.10.2006  were  regularized  on

28.12.2010  w.e.f.  03.10.2008.   Aggrieved  by  the  non

implementation  of  the  directions  issued  by  the  Division

Bench in Writ  Appeal  No.1523 of  2008 and Batch dated

17.11.2009,  persons  who  were  not  appointed  filed

Contempt Petitions.  It  was brought to the notice of the

6 | P a g e

Division  Bench  hearing  the  Contempt  Petitions  that  a

learned Single Judge stayed all further appointments to the

posts  of  Junior  Linemen  on  22.04.2010  in  Writ  Petition

No.9129 of  2010.   The Division Bench vacated the said

interim order  and  directed  the  completion  of  the  entire

process  of  appointment  and  regularization  as  per  the

judgment in Writ Appeals 1434 of 2008 and Batch within a

period of two months.   

6.  Permission was accorded by the Government to fill

up another 7319 vacant posts of Junior Linemen in the A.P.

TRANSCO and the four DISCOMS on 15.06.2011.   In  the

meanwhile, the process of implementation of the judgment

in Writ  Appeals 1434 of 2008 and Batch was continuing

and a large number of contract labourers who could not be

appointed  in  view  of  Clause  6  (iv)  (c)  of  the  revised

notification dated 20.10.2006 were appointed even after

the fresh notification was issued.  There is no dispute that

these appointments were beyond the 7114 posts that were

advertised in 2006.    

7. Several  writ  petitions  were  filed  in  the  High  Court

raising  various  points  including  the  validity  of

appointments  beyond those that  were  advertised  in  the

7 | P a g e

year 2006.  Preference given to experienced candidates in

the  selections  made  pursuant  to  the  advertisement  of

2006 was also subject matter of some writ petitions.  The

High  Court  disposed of  the  writ  petitions  by  a  common

judgment  dated  14.03.2012  by  giving  the  following

declarations and directions: “DECLARATIONS:

i)  The  Notifications  dated  6/8.06.2006  as  revised  on 20/21.10.2006 are legal, except the condition no. 6 (iv) (c  )  of  the  revised  notification  dated  20/21.10.2006, which was already struck down by this Court.

ii) Among the qualified candidates, the contract labour appointed  earlier  and  working  as  on  the  date  of issuance of first notification i.e.,  6/8.6.2006 with work experience  as  certified  by  the  concerned  Divisional Engineer,  shall  alone be treated as  presently  working contract  labour  and  are  entitled  for  preference  in selection based on the length of service.

iii)  The  persons  appointed  as  on  the  date  of  first notification and revised notification, shall be treated as freshers.

iv) If the contract labour and freshers apply for the post of Contract Junior Lineman, the contract labour shall be given preference for selection as per condition 6 (iv) (b) of the revised notification.

v)  The  action  of  AP  Transco  and  four  distribution companies in selecting the fresh candidates based on their marks in ITI examination, ignoring the claim of the eligible experienced contract labour is illegal.

vi)  After  considering  the  cases  of  all  the  existing contract labour, still if there remains any vacant posts, then  the  cases  of  the  fresh  candidates  shall  be considered subject to fulfilling the requisite conditions and the marks obtained in the qualifying examination shall be the criteria for their selection as per condition 6 (iv) (d) of the revised notification.

8 | P a g e

vii) Applicants who applied pursuant to the notifications are entitled to be considered even if their names are not sponsored by the employment exchange concerned.

viii) If more than one contract labour apply for the post with  same  length  of  service  and  experience,  in  such cases, obviously, the candidate with earlier date of birth shall be given preference for selection.

ix)  The  technical  qualifications,  the  educational qualifications, age and experience etc shall be fulfilled as on the date of the first notification i.e.,  6/8.6.2006 alone.

x)  The  candidates  who have  applied  pursuant  to  the notifications  dated  6/8.6.2006  as  revised  on 20/21.10.2006 and fulfil  all  the requisite qualifications such as technical, educational, age, nativity, experience etc as on the date of  first  notification,  shall  alone be considered for  the 7114 posts  notified by AP Transco and four distribution companies.

xi) The candidates who have not applied in pursuance of the  notifications  dated  6/8.6.2006  as  revised  on 20/21.10.2006  and  permitted  to  pole  climbing  test pursuant to the orders of this Court are not entitled to be considered.

xii)  The  action  of  AP  Transco  and  four  distribution companies in filling up the subsequent vacancies that arose  pursuant  to  the  permission  granted  by  the Government  vide  its  letter  No.565/Ser/2011  dated 15.6.2011, with any of the candidates either affected by reason of struck down of condition No. 6 (iv) (c ) of the revised notification or on any account is illegal. If they are entitled to be selected by giving preference to their experience/length  of  service  subject  to  fulfillment  of requisite conditions/qualifications for such consideration shall be restricted to notified 7114 posts only as they are entitled for selection under conditions 6 (iv) (a) and (b) of the revised notification.

xiii) Though the selection and appointment of JLM is for one-year  contract  period,  the  employer  is  entitled  to retain, absorb and regularize their appointment and also consider for their promotion.

xiv) The subsequent vacancies of 7319 JLM posts that arose  pursuant  to  the  permission  granted  by  the Government  vide  its  letter  No.  565/Ser/2011  dated

9 | P a g e

15.6.2011 shall  be filled  by issuing fresh notifications alone as per the rules.

xv) No contract labour or fresh candidate is entitled to claim  any  sort  of  exemption  with  regard  to  age, educational qualifications, technical qualifications, pass in pole climbing test etc for consideration of their cases for appointment to the post of JLM.

xvi)  The rule  of  reservation  shall  be  followed both  in respect  of  existing  contract  labour  as  well  as  fresh candidates as per the existing procedure and practice. Though  the  unit  of  appointment  is  circle/district, maintenance of the roster as per the existing practice either division wise or circle wise, as the case may be, is legal and valid for implementation of rule of reservation, as the posts are not civil posts.

DIRECTIONS:

a).  The  selections  made  contrary  to  the  above declarations are illegal and they are set aside.

b).  The  selection  of  the  candidates  as  against  the subsequent vacancies of 7319 posts of JLM that arose pursuant  to  the  permission  of  the  government  vide letter  No.565/Ser/2011  dated  15.6.2011  is  illegal  and the same are set aside.

c).  The respondents  are directed to  review the entire selection process strictly in terms of this judgment and the afore said declarations and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

d). The respondents are directed to fill up 7319 posts of JLM  that  arose  pursuant  to  the  permission  of  the government  vide  letter  No.  565/Ser/2011  dated 15.6.2011  by  issuing  the  notifications  /  calling  for applications from the eligible candidates, of course, by giving preference to the contract labour as per rules.”

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the above appeals

are filed.    

8. We have heard the learned counsel for  the parties.

The  selection  and  appointment  to  7114  posts  of  Junior

10 | P a g e

Linemen were approved by a judgment dated 10.11.2009

of  the  Division Bench in  Writ  Appeal  1434 of  2008 and

Batch.  Their  services  have  also  been  regularized.   The

directions  issued  by  the  High  Court  in  the  impugned

judgment  pertaining  to  the  selection  of  7114  Junior

Linemen pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.06.2006/

20.10.2006 is  not justified.  No such directions could be

issued especially  after  the judgment  of  another  Division

Bench  approving  appointments  of  7114  Junior  Linemen

became  final.  The  High  Court  is  right  in  holding  that

appointments could not have been made to posts beyond

the 7114 posts that were advertised.  However, the High

Court ought to have considered that the submission made

by the learned Advocate General regarding the imminent

disruption of essential services was taken into account by

an earlier Division Bench which permitted the filling up of

posts beyond the 7114 posts which were advertised.    On

the  basis  of  the  submission  of  the  learned  Advocate

General and the judgment of the High Court in Writ Appeal

1434 of 2008 and Batch, persons who participated in the

selections but could not be appointed in view of condition

mentioned in Clause 6 (iv)(c) of the amended notification

11 | P a g e

dated  20.10.2006  were  also  appointed  as  contract

labourers and their services were regularised.   

9.  A perusal of the declarations and directions in the

impugned  judgment  would  show  that  the  High  Court

conducted a scrutiny of the selections made pursuant to

the  notifications  dated  08.06.2006/20.10.2006  to  7114

posts of Junior Linemen.    The submission made by the

learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties is that the

appointments made to posts beyond 7114 posts that were

advertised  on  08.06.2006/20.10.2006  were  by  way  of

implementation  of  the  directions  issued  by  a  Division

Bench of the High Court on 10.11.2009 in Writ Appeal 1434

of  2008  and  Batch.   Therefore,  according  to  them,  the

finding of the High Court that appointments made to posts

beyond those that were advertised is  not correct.    The

directions  issued by the High Court are:-

“Therefore,  taking  the  aforesaid  undertakings  of  the Appellant-Distribution  Companies  on record,  we direct the  Appellant  Companies  to  appoint  all  the Respondents/Writ  Petitioners,  who  submitted  their applications  pursuant  to  the  notifications  dated 8.6.2006  and  the  other  dates,  issued  by  the  various appellant  companies,  and  who  have  passed  the  pole climbing test and fulfilled the other eligibility criterion for appointment as Junior Linemen, without reference to and without insisting upon the fulfillment of Condition No.6 (iv) (c) of the revised notification dated 20.10.2006 within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

12 | P a g e

We  also  make  it  clear  that  this  direction  would  be applicable  to  all  those  candidates,  who  have  not approached this Court but who had applied in pursuance of the aforementioned notifications, subject to passing of  the  pole  climbing  test  and  fulfillment  of  eligibility criteria.  We however make it clear that the persons who have not  applied  in  pursuance  of  the  notifications  dated 8.6.2006  and  the  other  dates  and  who  have  not subjected themselves to the selection process have no right whatsoever to claim that they are entitled for such appointment.   We  also  make  it  clear  that  all  the  selected  and appointed  respondents-Writ  Petitioners  and  others similarly situated would be entitled for all  benefits on par with the persons who have been appointed as Junior Linemen  as  per  Condition  No.6  (iv)(c)  of  the  revised notification, including regularization of their service as per rules and policy.”    

10. The said judgment of the High Court in Writ Appeal

No.1434  of  2008  and  Batch  was  referred  to  in  the

impugned judgment.  However, the High Court proceeded

to  adjudicate  the  correctness  of  the  selections  made

pursuant to the notification 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.  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.  Therefore,  the  declarations  and

13 | P a g e

directions  which  have  a  bearing  on  the  selections  and

appointments that are already made are not sustainable.

11. 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.   

12. 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.   

13. Needless to say that, any future recruitment to the  

post of Junior Lineman shall be done strictly in accordance  

with the law.   

14 | P a g e

14. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the

High Court is set aside and the appeals are allowed.

Contempt  Petitions  are  closed.  All  the  pending

applications  are  disposed  of  in  terms  of  the  above

judgment.     

                              ..................................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

 ..................................J.               [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]

New Delhi, February 25, 2019

15 | P a g e