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
