Higher Placement in Seniority List Cannot Be Ignored: Supreme Court Upholds Direction to Consider Contractual Worker for Appointment on Par with Others Regularised

“Respondent Cannot Be Denied Consideration When Others With Lesser Man-Days Were Appointed” — Supreme Court in a latest judgement upheld the orders of the Telangana High Court directing the power distribution company to reconsider the respondent's appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) or any other suitable post. The Court held that “The respondent’s case cannot be rejected when others who were placed lower in the seniority list and had served fewer man-days were regularized.”

The respondent, an ex-casual labourer, was part of a recruitment process initiated under a 1997 policy for regularizing ex-casual labourers. His appointment was rejected several times on grounds including the genuineness of his service certificate and alleged non-availability of vacancies. Meanwhile, similarly situated persons lower in the seniority list were appointed pursuant to other court orders.

The Court, rejecting the Corporation's arguments, firmly held, “We find that the High Court has correctly reasoned that candidates with lesser man-days than the respondent, who are placed relatively lower in the seniority list, have been appointed and hence the respondent’s case must be considered on par with them.”

The Court examined whether the list relied upon by the High Court was a mere eligibility list or an actual seniority list. It concluded, “The list placed before us is titled ‘Seniority list of qualified candidates for the post of LDCs’ and arranges candidates by date of initial engagement; it cannot now be said to be merely an eligibility list.”

The Court was unpersuaded by the appellant's argument that the respondent's certificate was not genuine, observing, “The learned Single Judge has already directed the appellant to consider the respondent's case on the same terms as those of other appointees whose cases were decided by the High Court earlier.” The Supreme Court maintained that this was not the stage to conclusively decide factual disputes on genuineness, but the appellant was free to consider it while deciding afresh.

Addressing the issue of vacancies, the Court clarified, “While reconsidering the case of the respondent for appointment to the post of LDC or any equivalent post, the appellants may take into account other aspects which they sought to contend before us.” However, the Court categorically rejected the idea that the respondent's higher placement in the seniority list could be brushed aside.

The Court also underlined the impact of long-pending litigation. “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.”

By upholding the High Court's view, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that public authorities cannot selectively apply policy benefits and ignore their own seniority lists when implementing regularisation schemes.

The judgment ends with a reaffirmation that “The respondent’s claim must be considered fairly, on par with similarly placed persons who have already secured appointment.”

Date of Decision: April 2, 2025