Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to the validity of appointments to the posts of Junior Linemen in the Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation (A.P. TRANSCO) and four Distribution Companies (DISCOMS) in the erstwhile combined State of Andhra Pradesh. On 07.06.2006, the Government permitted filling up 7114 posts of Junior Linemen on contract basis, following the rule of reservation. Notifications were issued on 08.06.2006 and revised on 20.10.2006, prescribing conditions including ITI qualification, residence in notified area, and pole climbing. The selection criteria initially based on ITI marks were challenged, leading to a High Court direction to treat operation/circle/district as unit and give weightage to experienced candidates. The revised notification gave preference to contract labourers based on earlier date of birth, which was struck down by the High Court as illegal and arbitrary. However, the High Court allowed the selected candidates to continue till expiry of contract and directed a fresh selection process. On appeal, the Division Bench set aside the directions on preference and tenure but approved reservation. It further directed appointment of all writ petitioners who could not be selected due to the struck-down condition, even those who did not approach the court, and held they were entitled to regularization. The services of 7114 Junior Linemen were regularized on 28.12.2010 w.e.f. 03.10.2008. Subsequently, the Government permitted filling up another 7319 posts in 2011. Several writ petitions were filed challenging various aspects, including appointments beyond the advertised 7114 posts. The High Court disposed of these petitions on 14.03.2012 with detailed declarations and directions, upholding the notifications except condition 6(iv)(c), and holding that appointments beyond 7114 posts were illegal. The Supreme Court, in the present appeals, examined the validity of the appointments and regularization. The court upheld the preference to contract labourers based on length of service, subject to reservation, and affirmed the regularization of the 7114 Junior Linemen. However, it held that appointments made beyond the advertised 7114 posts, pursuant to the High Court's directions, were illegal and could not be regularized. The court directed that such appointments be terminated and fresh selections be conducted for the 7319 posts. The judgment emphasizes strict adherence to reservation policy and proper selection procedures.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Junior Linemen - Preference to Contract Labourers - The court examined the validity of appointments made under notifications dated 08.06.2006 and 20.10.2006, where contract labourers were given preference based on length of service and earlier date of birth. The High Court had struck down the absolute preference based on age but allowed preference based on experience. The Supreme Court upheld the preference to contract labourers based on length of service, subject to reservation and other conditions. (Paras 1-7) B) Service Law - Regularization - Junior Linemen - The court considered the regularization of 7114 Junior Linemen appointed on contract basis, which was done on 28.12.2010 w.e.f. 03.10.2008. The Supreme Court upheld the regularization, noting that the appointments were made in compliance with the High Court's directions and the government's permission. (Paras 5-6) C) Service Law - Selection Process - Validity of Notifications - The court examined the legality of the notifications dated 08.06.2006 and 20.10.2006, except for condition 6(iv)(c) which was struck down. The Supreme Court upheld the selection process, including the preference to contract labourers and the criteria for selection based on ITI marks for freshers. (Paras 2-4) D) Service Law - Reservation - Rule of Reservation - The court emphasized that the rule of reservation must be strictly followed in all appointments. The High Court's directions regarding reservation were approved by the Division Bench and upheld by the Supreme Court. (Paras 3-4) E) Service Law - Appointments Beyond Advertised Posts - The court addressed the issue of appointments made beyond the 7114 posts advertised in 2006, pursuant to the High Court's directions. The Supreme Court held that such appointments were illegal and could not be regularized, as they were made without proper advertisement and selection process. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointments of Junior Linemen made pursuant to notifications dated 08.06.2006 and 20.10.2006, including those beyond the advertised 7114 posts, and their subsequent regularization, are valid in law.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the regularization of the 7114 Junior Linemen appointed pursuant to the notifications dated 08.06.2006 and 20.10.2006. However, it held that appointments made beyond the advertised 7114 posts were illegal and directed that such appointments be terminated. The court further directed that the 7319 posts advertised in 2011 be filled through fresh notifications as per rules.
Law Points
- Validity of appointment to Junior Linemen posts
- Preference to contract labourers
- Regularization of services
- Reservation policy
- Selection criteria based on ITI marks and age
