Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power ... vs Palla Sri Rama Sanjeeva Rao, on 10 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU
WRIT APPEAL No.692 of 2022
(Through physical mode)
The Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd.,
Visakhapatnam,
Rep. by its Managing Director and others.
..Appellants
Versus
Palla Sri Rama Sanjeeva Rao,
S/o. Venkatchella Rao,
Aged about 46 years,
Occ: Shift Operator,
O/o 33/11KV,
Tuni, Sub Station, APEPDCL,
Tuni, East Godavari District and others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Metta Chandrasekhara Rao
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 : Mr.G.Seena Kumar
Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 16 : GP for Services -I
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt:10.10.2022
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
This appeal would call in question the order dated 11.07.2022
passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.20923 of 2020 disposing
of the writ petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, directing
the respondent authorities to appoint the writ petitioners as Junior
Lineman against the vacancies earmarked for BC-D category with all
consequential benefits including seniority on par with other candidates
appointed pursuant to the notification dated 07.06.2006 and
20.10.2006 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of the order. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the writ petition are
the appellants before us.
2. The issue involved in the present appeal pertains to the
recruitment of 7114 posts of Junior Linemen under recruitment
notification dated 08.06.2006. Out of the said posts, 547 posts pertain
to East Godavari District. Out of 547 vacancies, 344 vacancies were
filled with existing contract labourer and the remaining 203 vacancies
shall have to be filled with fresh candidates as per notification dated
08.06.2006 and amended notification dated 20.10.2006 by applying
rule of reservation. Out of 203 vacancies earmarked for fresh
candidates, 38 vacancies are backlog vacancies and the remaining 165
vacancies have to be filled with merit candidates. However, according
to the writ petitioners, while filling up of 165 vacancies, the respondent
authorities have committed a mistake by selecting 18 Open Category
candidates in excess against the vacancies earmarked for SC and BC-D.
The writ petitioners belong to BC-D category.
3. Indisputably, the respondents constituted a committee to verify
the facts and objections with regard to filling of 18 Open Category
candidates in excess. The Committee submitted its report stating that
'12' SC candidates and '6' BC-D candidates are shortfall and OC
candidates are recruited in excess against the roster earmarked for SC
and BC-B. Instead of taking corrective measures, respondents
continued to appoint 18 candidates belonging to Open Category in
excess. Report of the committee is also filed along with the material
papers, wherein the committee observed as follows:
"..... all the percentages of reserved categories as
per ROR it is found that 18 Nos. candidates were
recruited in open competition in excess to their ratio
which is deviation in observing rule of reservation and
they are to be removed and the Reserved Community
Candidates overlooked may be appointed as per fitment.
The 18 Nos. candidates cannot be regularized until the
posts of specific category wise filled as per ROR."
4. However, there is no material to demonstrate that the official
respondents have found the report of the committee to be faulty.
Instead, they proceeded to regularise 18 candidates, who were
recruited in open competition in excess to the ratio. Since the
committee recommended for appointment of reserved category
candidates, learned single Judge has rightly granted the relief by
directing the official respondents to appoint the writ petitioners with all
consequential benefits.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that ordinarily,
granting arrears of salary to the candidates, who were recruited in
fresh recruitment, is not permissible because that concept would apply
where a person is unlawfully terminated and then reinstated in service.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the writ petitioners refers to
the memo filed by the writ petitioners on 10.10.2022 stating that the
writ petitioners would be satisfied if they are appointed as Junior
Linemen on par with other candidates appointed pursuant to the
notification dated 07.06.2006/20.10.2006 notionally with consequential
seniority from the date on which the last BC-D candidate by name
Menda Venkataramana with 84.46 marks with General merit 226, was
appointed and the pay is revised notionally and the arrears of pay from
the date of filing of W.P.No.20923 of 2020 i.e. 09.11.2020 till the date
of their appointment are released.
7. Having considered the entire fact situation of the case and
considering the statement made in the memo filed on behalf of the
writ petitioners, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate to
modify the order passed by the learned single Judge to the extent of
consequential relief, by directing the respondent authorities to allow
seniority to the writ petitioners from the date on which the last BC-D
candidate - Menda Venkataramana was appointed and revise the pay
notionally and release arrears of pay from the date of filing of
W.P.No.20923 of 2020 i.e. 09.11.2020 till the date of their
appointment.
8. With the above modification, the appeal is disposed of. No
costs. All pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J
Ksp
