Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 484 (AP)

Vithanala Mohan Babu v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2025-03-18

CHALLA GUNARANJAN

body2025
ORDER : (CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.) In all these writ petitions, petitioners were all working as Assistant Lineman and due for promotion as Lineman and are assailing the seniority list prepared by respondents based on roster and further challenged Memo No.EE/O/AMP/ADM/JAO/SA-1/D.No.1406/2024, dated 03.08.2024, issued by 6 th respondent by which petitioners were called upon to submit an undertaking to be arbitrary, contrary to Rule 26 of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) Service Regulations Part – II besides being in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 2. Since all these writ petitions raise common question regarding preparation of seniority list based on roster rather than on merit, the same are being disposed of by common order. 3. The facts set out in W.P. No.27137 of 2024 are as follows: (a) Petitioner was appointed as contract Junior Lineman on yearly contract basis on 07.03.2007. Later, his services were regularized as Junior Lineman on 03.10.2008. He was promoted as Assistant Lineman on 21.07.2011. Seniority list of Assistant Lineman cadre was fixed and communicated by 6 th respondent vide proceedings dated 20.09.2016, as per which, petitioner was placed at S.No.82 out of 107. It is stated that persons from S.Nos.1 to 81 have been promoted from Assistant Lineman to Lineman and the remaining are awaiting for promotion. (b) Meanwhile, seniority list of contract Junior Lineman who were appointed during the year 2006-2007 came to be fixed following ROR and by memo dated 30.07.2024 has been communicated to the concerned Divisions. As per the same, the petitioner stood at S.No.38 out of 61. The said memo also reflected that the seniority lists are being prepared following ROR and that as per minutes of APPCC in its meeting held on 13.02.2024, a Committee was constituted to study and submit report on implementation of Merit-cum-Seniority by TOO (Addl. Secy-Per) Ms.No.3238, dated 15.04.2024. Therefore, wherever final seniority list on merit basis has not been finalized, it has been instructed to follow conditional seniority list by obtaining undertakings from the prospective promotes, as seniority was fixed on ROR basis, which will be subject to outcome of the report of the Committee on implementation of Merit-cum-Seniority. (c) By memo dated 03.08.2024, the 6 th respondent issued another integrated seniority list which comprised Junior Lineman recruited on contract basis during 2006 and 2007 and Junior Lineman recruited on regular basis during 2014 on ROR basis. (c) By memo dated 03.08.2024, the 6 th respondent issued another integrated seniority list which comprised Junior Lineman recruited on contract basis during 2006 and 2007 and Junior Lineman recruited on regular basis during 2014 on ROR basis. As per the said list, petitioner stood at S.No.123 out of 203. Since the respondents have not prepared merit based seniority list, the aforesaid integrated seniority list based on ROR is sought to be acted upon, for which purpose all the prospective promotees have been asked to submit undertaking letters. Petitioner has submitted objections by letter dated 12.08.2024 finding fault with preparation of seniority list on ROR basis rather than following merit as contemplated under Regulation 26 of APSEB Service Regulations Part – II and Rule 33(b) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. (d) As the respondents have not considered objections, petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Petitioner filed I.A. No.1 of 2024 to direct the respondents to consider objections/representation dated 12.08.2024 for reviewing the entire seniority list as communicated by memo dated 03.08.2024. It appears, 6 th respondent by memo dated 16.11.2024 rejected the objections raised by petitioner inter alia informing that seniority list was duly fixed following rule of reservation as per the instructions received from competent authority but not on merit order. Petitioner filed I.A. No.1 of 2025 seeking to set aside the aforesaid memo. 3. (a) Respondents filed counter stating that as per the instructions of higher authorities in order to comply with various orders passed by the High Court, the seniority list came to be revised and that persons who have been selected during the year 2006-2007 as contract Junior Lineman and Junior Lineman who were recruited in pursuance to selections held during the years 2014, 2019 and 2021 were all integrated into single unit and integrated seniority list came to be prepared and the same was communicated to all stakeholders. The said seniority list was prepared following rule of reservation. (b) It is also stated that in the meeting held on 13.02.2024, all the DISCOMS have decided to constitute a committee to study and submit a report on implementation of Merit-cum-Seniority, accordingly, TOO (Addl.Secy-Per) Ms.No.3238, dated 15.04.2024, came to be issued. The said seniority list was prepared following rule of reservation. (b) It is also stated that in the meeting held on 13.02.2024, all the DISCOMS have decided to constitute a committee to study and submit a report on implementation of Merit-cum-Seniority, accordingly, TOO (Addl.Secy-Per) Ms.No.3238, dated 15.04.2024, came to be issued. It is also decided that final seniority list prepared based on merit as issued before 15.04.2024 shall not be revised and wherever such final seniority list on merit basis was not finalized, conditional seniority list was to be acted upon, for which purpose, necessary undertaking from all prospective promotes were to be secured as the seniority lists were based on ROR basis which would be subject outcome of report of Committee on implementation on Merit-cum-Seniority.As per this particular division, there was no final seniority list prepared based on merit, the seniority list as prepared on ROR basis was communicated by memo dated 03.08.2024, besides asking the candidates to submit undertakings. (c) Some of the candidates have submitted objections and the same have been suitably replied confirming that the seniority list prepared was on the basis of rule of reservation and not on merit and as the said seniority list was only a conditional seniority list, the candidates were asked to submit undertakings. Once the Committee makes recommendation to implement merit based seniority list, the seniority list would be revised accordingly. 4. Once the Committee makes recommendation to implement merit based seniority list, the seniority list would be revised accordingly. 4. Learned standing counsel has also placed on record latest instructions dated 18.03.2025 issued by the 4 th respondent, which reads as under: “Adverting to the Court cases filed in W.P.No. 27137 of 2024 by Sri Vithanla Mohan Babu, ALM, W.P.No. 27298 of 2024 by Sri Mahammad Mujeebulla, W.P.No. 27476 of 2024 by Sri Jonnada Gangadhar, W.P. No.27587 of 2024 by Sri Kotipalli Veera Venkata Satya Prasad, W.P.No. 27826 of 2024 by Sri Jagadam Simhadri, W.P.No.27862 of 2024 by Sri Mattaparthi Ramu and W.P. No.31240 of 2024 by Sri Tarapatla Sudharkar Redddy, it is to inform that, the present status regarding Merit Seniority in respect of Direct recruitees in APEPDCL is as follows: i) It is to inform that, as per APEPDCL Board resolution of the 145 th Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Company, in the E.O.O.(HRD) Ms.No.137, Dt.05.08.2023, orders were issued to revise the seniority lists in respect of direct recruitees based on the Merit List in terms of Regulation 26 of APSEB Service Regulations Part.II as adopted by APEPDCL. ii) Later, in the T.O.O. (Addl.Secy-Per) Ms. No. 3238, Dt.15.04.2024, APTRANSCO has constituted a Committee to study & submit a report to the Chairman/ APPCC regarding Merit Cum Seniority in AP Power utilities and at present the same is under examination. 2) In this regard, it is hereby requested to seek three months time regarding finalization of the issue. It is requested to appraise the same in the Hon'ble High Court at the time of hearing.” 5. (a) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Regulation 26 of Regulations deals with seniority and in terms of the same, the seniority list has to be prepared based on merit, however, the respondents are time and again preparing seniority lists based on rule of reservation, which is contrary to aforesaid Regulation 26. Petitioner in terms of the integrated seniority list has been placed at S.No.121 as against his secured percentage of marks of 86.92, whereas the persons at S.Nos.85, 93, 101, 106, 111 and 119 who have less merit have been placed above the petitioner, which clearly indicates that respondents have prepared the seniority list not based on merit. Petitioner in terms of the integrated seniority list has been placed at S.No.121 as against his secured percentage of marks of 86.92, whereas the persons at S.Nos.85, 93, 101, 106, 111 and 119 who have less merit have been placed above the petitioner, which clearly indicates that respondents have prepared the seniority list not based on merit. For better appreciation, he referred to the table at Para 5 of the writ affidavit, which is reproduced as under: S.No. Name of the candidate Seniority Sl. No. Percentage 1 Yedla Venkateswara Rao 85 76.31 2 Sadanala Sudhakar 93 85.38 3 Chilakapati Sandeep 101 85.23 4 Ganesh Swamy Chandra Balaji Yelumarthy 106 85.08 5 Chikkala Chinna Ramakrishna 111 85.08 6 Krishna Rao Jonnada 119 84.92 7 Writ Petitioner No.1 121 86.92 (b) He further contended that the very preparation of merit list based on rule of reservation being contrary to APSEB Regulations, question of respondents insisting the petitioner to submit undertaking in terms of memo dated 03.08.2024 does not arise and the entire procedure adopted by respondents is arbitrary and illegal without any statutory backing. 6. The short question which falls for consideration is whether the respondents are justified in preparing integrated seniority list based on rule of reservation in the teeth of Regulation 26 of APSEB Regulations. 7. For better appreciation of the case, Regulation 26 of APSEB Regulations reproduced here as under: “ 26. Seniority:- (a) The seniority of a person in a class of service, category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the rank obtained by him in the list of approved candidates drawn up by the Board or other appointing authority as the case may be. Provided that where no ranking has been fixed in respect of any person in a service, class, category or grade, the seniority of such candidate shall be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade. If any portion of the service of such person does not count towards probation under regulations 14(c), (e), 19 and 38(b), his seniority shall be determined by the date of commencement of his service, which counts towards probation. If any portion of the service of such person does not count towards probation under regulations 14(c), (e), 19 and 38(b), his seniority shall be determined by the date of commencement of his service, which counts towards probation. (b) The transfer of a person from one category or grade in a class of service to another category or grade in the same class of service carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to the latter for purposes of seniority; and the seniority of a person so transferred shall be determined with reference to the rank in the category or grade from which he was transferred. Where any difficulty or doubt arises in applying this sub- regulation, seniority shall be determined by the appointing authority. (c) Where a member of a class of service, category or grade is reduced to a lower class of service, category or grade, he shall be placed at the top of the latter unless the authority ordering such reduction directs that he shall take rank in such lower classes of service, category or grade, next below any specified member thereof.” 8. The above clause clearly manifests that the seniority of persons in a class of service shall be determined based on their rank. Even the respondents do not dispute the same in the counter and in the instructions. The instructions clearly state that the 1 st respondent – Corporation Board passed resolution in its 145 th meeting of Board of Directors on 05.08.2023 resolving to revise the seniority list in respect of direct recruits based on merit list in terms of Regulation 26 of ASPSEB Regulations. Further a Committee was also constituted to study and submit report on implementation of Merit-cum-Seniority in all DISCOMS, which is pending and likely to be concluded soon. When such is the case, on one hand, the respondents have decided to implement seniority list based on merit as on 15.04.2024, there was absolutely no necessity in preparing seniority list based on rule of reservation, which is clearly in contravention of Regulation 26 in the interregnum to effect promotions. When the very preparation of such merit list based on rule of reservation being contrary to Regulation 26, rather than correcting the course of action, respondents cannot continue to perpetuate the illegality and insist the prospective promotees to furnish undertakings. When the very preparation of such merit list based on rule of reservation being contrary to Regulation 26, rather than correcting the course of action, respondents cannot continue to perpetuate the illegality and insist the prospective promotees to furnish undertakings. As the respondents are not in dispute of application of Regulation 26 and that they are in the process of revising the seniority list based on merit, which is awaiting outcome of committee’s report and likely to take sometime, this Court proposes to dispose of these matters with the following directions: (i) The respondents henceforth shall not proceed with further promotions in pursuance to integrated seniority list (prepared based on rule of reservation) of Junior Lineman as communicated vide Memo No.EE/O/AMP/ADM/JAO/SA-1/D.No.1406/2024, dated 03.08.2024, issued by the 6 th respondent. (ii) The respondents are directed to revise the seniority list following Regulation 26 of APSEB Regulations once the Committee constituted in terms of TOO (Addl. Secy-Per) Ms. No.3238, dated 15.04.2024, submits final report and effect promotions accordingly. 9. With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.