Supreme Court Upholds High Court Order for Reconsideration of LDC Appointment in Telangana Power Discom Case
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors. vs. Ch. Bhaskara Chary, addressing a long-standing dispute over the appointment of a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) under a policy for ex-casual labourers. The case, which has been pending since 2008, highlights the importance of fair treatment in employment matters and the judiciary’s role in ensuring justice for contractual workers.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to a notification issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) on May 18, 1997, which aimed to fill 50% of vacancies in certain initial recruitment cadres, including LDCs, from the ex-casual labourers category. The respondent, Ch. Bhaskara Chary, applied under this policy in response to an advertisement dated March 11, 2001. However, his application was rejected on January 21, 2002, on the grounds that his service certificate as a contract labourer was not genuine. This rejection was challenged in the High Court, which directed the appellants to verify the certificate.
Despite the High Court’s intervention, the respondent’s case was rejected again on March 13, 2003, as the contractor who issued the certificate denied employing him. Later, on April 14, 2003, the respondent was denied consideration for failing a typewriting exam, a requirement that the High Court subsequently ruled as unnecessary in its order dated November 1, 2004. The High Court directed the appellants to reconsider the respondent’s case afresh.
Key Developments
In 2006, the Review Committee of the appellants rejected the respondent’s case once more, citing the absence of vacancies in the BC-B category under the 50% quota for ex-casual labourers. Additionally, the appellants withdrew the 1997 policy on September 15, 2006, subject to the outcome of pending cases. The respondent filed a writ petition in 2008, challenging the Review Committee’s order. Initially dismissed in 2017 due to delay and policy withdrawal, the respondent’s review petition was allowed in 2018. The High Court noted that candidates with lesser qualifications and lower positions on the eligibility list had been appointed, and thus directed the appellants to consider the respondent’s case similarly.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court examined the appellants’ argument that the list relied upon by the High Court was not a seniority list but merely a list of eligible candidates. The court rejected this contention, stating:
“Upon contrasting the appointed candidates, as submitted by the appellant, with the seniority list placed before us by the respondent, we find that M. Bhaskar (BC-A) and M. Laxminarsu (BC-B) appear at sl. nos. 23 and 28 respectively. In this view of the matter, we reject the appellant’s submission that the list relied on by the High Court was not a seniority list and find that the High Court has correctly reasoned that candidates with lesser man-days than the respondent, who are placed relatively lower than the respondent in the seniority list, have been appointed and hence the respondent’s case must be considered by the appellant on par with them.”
The court also addressed the appellants’ concerns about the genuineness of the respondent’s service certificate and the lack of vacancies, but refrained from adjudicating on these issues, leaving them for the appellants to reconsider.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order, directing the appellants to reconsider the respondent’s case for appointment to the post of LDC or any other suitable post within six weeks. The court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution, given the prolonged litigation. The relevant portion of the judgment reads:
“However, while reconsidering the case of the respondent for appointment to the post of LDC or any other equivalent post in which a vacancy may exist, they may take into account other aspects of the matter, which they sought to contend before us, and pass appropriate orders. Considering that the present litigation was initiated in 2008, we direct the appellant to pass orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 weeks from today.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, emphasizing fair treatment for contractual workers under employment policies.
- The judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that eligible candidates are not arbitrarily excluded from employment opportunities.
- The case highlights the importance of transparency and consistency in implementing recruitment policies, especially for marginalized categories.
This ruling serves as a reminder to employers, particularly in the public sector, to adhere to equitable practices in recruitment and to address grievances of contractual workers promptly and fairly.
Petitioner Name: The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors..Respondent Name: Ch. Bhaskara Chary.Judgment By: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Joymalya Bagchi.Place Of Incident: Telangana.Judgment Date: 01-04-2025.Result: dismissed.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: the-superintending-e-vs-ch.-bhaskara-chary-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-01-04-2025.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Contractual Employment
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by P.S. Narasimha
See all petitions in Judgment by Joymalya Bagchi
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments
See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
