Ch. Ch. Mohan vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 2155 Tel

Telangana High Court

Ch. Ch. Mohan vs The State Of Telangana on 14 February, 2025

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

  WRIT PETITION No. 16987, 16991, 20494, 20588, 20629,
22829, 23035 of 2019, 21017 and 23947 of 2020, 2461, 3892,
            22608, 24037 AND 25244 OF 2021

  COMMON ORDER:

The relief sought in all these Writ Petitions being

the same i.e. to declare the action of the respondent - Telangana

State Northern Power Distribution Company Limited in not

appointing petitioners as Junior Linemen pursuant to the

notification dated 06.06.2006 and 08.06.2006 and the Revised

Notification dated 20.10.2006, in terms of the undertaking

recorded in the order dated 10.11.2011 in Writ Appeal No. 1434

of 2008 and batch which was reiterated in the order dated

25.02.2019 in SLP (C) No. 15001-15110 of 2013 by considering

the legal notice dated 20.04.2019, they are all heard together

and are disposed of by this common order.

2. Government accorded permission to AP TRANSCO

and four DISCOMs in the combined State of Andhra Pradesh to

recruit 7114 posts of Junior Linemen. Out of them, 1434 posts

fell to the share of TSNPDCL and 2443 posts fell to the share of

TSSPDCL. TSNPDCL issued a notification dated 06.06.2006

and 08.06.2006 for recruitment of 1434 Junior Linemen and

criteria for selection was covered under Clause 7(b) thereof.

Similar notification was issued by TSSPDCL. TSNPDCL issued

a revised notification dated 20.10.2006 for recruitment of 1434

Junior Linemen where criteria for selection was covered under

Clause 6. Clause 6 I(iv) provided the manner in which

preference would be given among presently serving contract

labour and fresh candidates, as extracted below:

"(iv) If conditions (i), (ii) and (iii) above are fulfilled, preference will be given to experience as noted below.

(a) Presently serving contract labour who are working now for manning of sub-stations of Transco/DISCOMs with recorded evidence through Sub-stations Log Books to be certified by the concerned Divisional Engineer

OR

Presently serving contract labour for any other works in Transco/DISCOMs with recorded evidence of EPF number in his name to be certified by the concerned DE

(b) If contract labour and fresh candidates apply for the post, the contract labour will be given preference for selection.

(c) If more than one contract labour apply for the post, the contract labour with earlier date of birth will be given preference for selection.

(d) If there are only fresh candidates who applied for the post the marks obtained in the qualifying examination will be the criteria for selection."

It is further stated that all the 7114 posts notified in

TRANSCO and DISCOMS were filled-up based on the above

criteria with contract labour based on age. Writ Petition No.

19051 of 2007 and batch was filed by contract labour and

freshers, challenging clause 6 I (iv) (c). The said Writ Petitions

were allowed on 02.05.2008 setting aside the said clause since

it gave preference to older aged contract labour irrespective of

their length of service or their qualifications or the marks in the

qualifying examination. The Corporations filed Writ Appeal No.

1434 of 2008 and batch challenging the above said order. In

view of the fact that all the 7114 posts were filled up and on the

basis of learned Advocate General's submission that all the

Corporations are ready to absorb and select petitioners in the

batch of writ petitions who were affected due to clause I 6(iv)(c),

this Court disposed of the Writ Appeals vide order dated

10.11.2009, with the following directions:

" 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 fulfilment 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.

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 pursuance of the aforesaid notifications, subject to passing of the pole climbing test and fulfilment of eligibility criteria 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 regularisation of their services as per rules and policy."

Writ Appeal No. 1523 of 2008 and batch of cases

pertaining to fresh candidates was also disposed of by order

dated 17.11.2009 in terms of the directions issued in Writ

Appeal No. 1434 of 2008, as under:

" It is represented by both the learned counsel that the issue involved in these cases is squarely covered by a judgment rendered by

this Court on 10.11.2009 in WA No. 1434 of 2008 and batch. However, learned standing counsel for Andhra Pradesh Central power Distribution Company Limited (APCPDCL) contends that the cases of the aggrieved fresh candidates herein can be considered only after exhausting the existing contract labour as per clauses 6 (iv)(b) & (d) of the revised notification dated 20.10.2006.

Recording the above submission, we are of the opinion that it would suffice, if a direction is issued to APCPDCL to consider the cases of the candidates in question as per Clauses 6 (iv) (b) & (d) of the revised notification dated 20.10.2006, of they are otherwise eligible Therefore, following the judgment rendered by us in WA. No. 1434 of 2008 and batch on 10.11.2009 and with the above direction, these cases i.e. W.A.No. 1523 of 2008 and W.P. No.s 14384 and 16292 of 2008 are disposed of No order as to costs".

In view of the above directions, vacancies arising in

the DISCOMs after notification dated 20.10.2006 were required

to be filled up with writ petitioners in the above cases and

similarly-situated candidates (including fresh candidates) who

applied pursuant to 2006 Notification.

Thereafter, Writ Petitions No. 6981 of 2010 and

batch was filed seeking a direction to the DISCOMs not to fill-up

the posts arising after Notification dated 20.10.2006 without

issuing a fresh notification. An interim order directing

respondents not to fill the vacancies was passed by this Court

which was stayed in Writ Appeal No. 693 of 2011 and batch.

Government accorded permission to fill up 7319 posts of Junior

Linemen in order to comply with the directions in Writ Appeal

No. 1434 of 2008 and batch and Writ Appeal No. 1523 of 2009

and batch. Out of which, 1111 posts pertain to TSNPDCL.

Permission was also accorded to fill up notified vacancies which

were unfilled due to non-availability of eligible contract labour

with fresh candidates as per marks merit. Several fresh

candidates were appointed pursuant to the above permission. In

TSNPDCL, out of a total of 1111 posts permitted by the

Government, 168 posts were filled with existing contract labour

and 831 posts were filled with fresh candidates. Therefore, after

filling up 999 posts in TSNPDCL, there are still 112 vacant posts

left which were accorded permission by the Government to be

filled. Similarly, in TSSPDCL, a total of 509 vacancies were left.

The services of those individuals who were absorbed (both

existing contract labour and fresh candidates) were regularised

in due course.

Writ Petition No. 6981 of 2010 and batch and Writ

Appeals No. 693 of 2011 and batch were clubbed together and

disposed of by order dated 14.03.2012 setting aside the

selection of candidates to the subsequently notified 7319

vacancies and directed those vacancies to be filled up taking up

fresh recruitment. In SLP No. 15001-15110 of 2013 and SLP No.

15114-15220 of 2013, the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 693 of

2011 and batch was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Subsequently, SLP No. 15001-15110 of 2013 and batch of

cases, including contempt cases, were disposed of by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court setting aside the judgment dated

14.03.2012 in Writ Appeal No. 693 of 2011 and batch. Further,

the undertaking of learned Senior Counsel appearing for

DISCOMs that persons who applied for selection in 2006 and

who were not yet appointed because of clause 6 I (iv)(c) shall be

considered for appointment. The relevant portions of the

judgment are extracted below:

"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 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) © 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."

3. This being the factual scenario, petitioners, being

fresh candidates, who applied pursuant to the notifications

issued in 2006 and had passed the pole climbing test and were

fully eligible, made representations through their Advocate to

appoint them to the post of Junior Linemen in accordance with

the undertakings given by the respondents before Division

Bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Since the said representations were not considered, these Writ

Petitions are filed.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri D. Prakash Reddy

appearing on behalf of Ms. P. Anusha and Sri Chikkudu

Prabhakar submits that in view of the undertaking given before

this Court in the above Writ Appeals, as reiterated by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petitions, supra,

respondents are bound to absorb fresh candidates who had

applied in 2006 and qualified the pole climbing test, in terms of

Clause 6 I(iv)(d), after exhausting existing contract labour. As

per respondent's own affidavit/report before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, after existing contract labour were absorbed

pursuant of the undertakings, fresh candidates were appointed

to fill the vacancies, however, there were still some vacancies

left. For the reasons best known to them, petitioners, who were

similarly-placed individuals as the appointed fresh candidates

were not absorbed despite the availability of vacancies. It is

argued that the contention in the counter that if petitioners

were existing contract labour, then alone they are eligible for the

benefit of the undertakings is untenable for in Writ Appeal No.

1434 of 2008 and batch, no such distinction was made; in Writ

Appeal No. 1523 of 2008 and batch, when the specific issue

pertaining to absorbing fresh candidates was under

consideration, this Court followed the order in Writ Appeal No.

1434 of 2008 and batch.

According to learned Senior Counsel, the conduct of

respondents, as set out in their own affidavit and report before

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, makes it evident that the benefit

was extended to fresh candidates who applied in 2006, after

exhausting existing contract labour. Again, in SLP 15001-15110

of 2013 and batch, the undertaking was not restricted only to

existing contract labour. Learned Senior Counsel also contends

that the contention in the counter that petitioners' marks in the

qualifying exam (ITI) were below the score of the last candidate,

who was selected, is untenable because when vacancies are still

left, question of comparing the marks of the last candidate who

was selected does not arise. Till the vacancies are filled, the

fresh candidates in the descending order of marks will be

eligible to be appointed and further, as demonstrated in para 6

of the reply affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 20494 of 2019,

persons with lesser marks than petitioners have also been

absorbed.

It is argued that the contention in the counter that

there are no vacancies of Junior Linemen available pursuant to

the notification of 2006 is untenable. Vacancies created after

2006 were permitted by the Government to be filled up by the

DISCOMs with candidates who applied for the notification of

2006 in order to honour the undertaking given to this Court. As

admitted in the affidavit/report filed before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, 112 vacancies earmarked for that purpose in TSNPDCL

are available to be filled. Similarly 509 vacancies in TSSPDCL

are available to be filled. In some cases, it is contended by the

respondents that some petitioners did not qualify the pole

climbing test, however, there is no record to that effect. All the

Petitioners qualified in the pole climbing test.

5. Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of Ms. K. Udaya Sri, learned Standing

Counsel for respondents submits that respondent - Corporation

issued notification No. 6 of 2006 inviting applications for the

post of Junior Linemen; thereafter a revised notification dated

20.10.2006 was issued notifying 7114 Junior Linemen posts in

four distribution companies in the combined State of Andhra

Pradesh which includes the posts notified in circular district

unit in the respondent company also. It is submitted that Writ

Petitions No. 19051 of 2008 and batch were filed challenging the

notification and during the pendency of the Writ Petitions, all

the vacancies notified by the respondent Company have been

filed up. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge by order dated

02.05.2008 set-aside the selection and directed the distribution

companies to prescribe the tenure of contract appointment of

the candidate who were appointed pursuant to the notification

in 2006. Aggrieved by the said order, Writ Appeal No. 1434 of

2008 and batch was filed. Before the Division Bench, the

learned Advocate General appearing for the Distribution

Company expressed that setting aside of the selection and

appointment of Junior Linemen would adversely affect the

power supply distribution, therefore, gave an undertaking for

accommodating the candidates, who are affected in the

implementation of clause 6 I(iv) (c) of the revised notification. As

per the said clause, if more than one contract labour is eligible

for selection, the candidate with higher age will be selected. The

said clause affected certain contract employees' selection to the

post. The Division Bench accepting the undertaking, disposed of

the Writ Appeals setting aside the order of the learned Single

Judge and directed to consider petitioners and others who are

affected by Clause 6 I (iv)(c). Accordingly, eligible candidates

affected by Clause 6 I (iv)(c) were considered and issued

appointment orders over and above 7114 posts notified.

According to learned Senior Counsel, selection

under notification of 2006 was again considered by another

Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 8794 of 2007 and batch. The

said batch of cases was finally decided by a common order

dated 14.03.2012 directing to review the entire selection process

pursuant to the notification issued in 2006. It is submitted

that, a batch of Contempt Cases was filed for not complying

with the order dated 14.03.2012. In the implementation of the

said order, certain selected and appointed candidates were

found to be ineligible. The said candidates approached the

Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (c) No.15001-15110/2023,

wherein initially, stay of implementation of order was granted.

Subsequently, by order dated 25.02 2019, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court set aside the order dated 14.03.2012 in Writ Petition No.

8794 of 2007 and batch and upheld the order dated 10.11.2009

in Writ Appeal No. 1434 of 2008 and batch. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court also recorded that DISCOMs should abide by

the undertaking given before the Division Bench to

accommodate the candidates, who were affected by Clause-6

I(iv)(c) of the revised notification.

Learned Senior Counsel further argued that in

terms of the order, only the candidates, who were affected in

selection in terms of Clause 6 I(iv)(c) are entitled to be

considered for appointments, subject to fulfilling other

conditions of the Notification. Petitioners in this batch of Writ

Petitions have not asserted that they were not selected only on

the basis of Clause 6 I(iv)(c). Further, they have not made any

individual representations together with documents submitted

along with the Application forms in terms of the notification

issued and in the absence of the same, they are not entitled for

any relief. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel submits that if

petitioners submit individual representations setting out their

eligibility in terms of the eligibility criteria in the notification

dated 20.10.2006 and in terms of the orders in Writ Appeals

stated supra as also the Special Leave Petitions, respondent

Corporation will consider the same and pass appropriate orders,

in accordance with law.

6. In view of the submissions made by learned Senior

Counsel appearing for respondent Corporation, with the consent

of both the parties, without going into merits, the Writ Petitions

are disposed of directing petitioners to submit individual

representations setting out their eligibility in terms of the

eligibility criteria in the Notification dated 20.10.2006 and in

terms of the judgment dated 10.11.2009 in Writ Appeal No.

1434 of 2008 and batch, judgment dated 17.11.2009 in Writ

Appeal No. 1523 of 2008 and batch and order dated

25.02.2019 in SLP No. 15001-15110 of 2013 and batch. The

same shall be considered by the Corporations and appropriate

orders be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

7. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if

any shall stand closed.

-------- -----------------------------

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J

14th February 2025

ksld