IMPORTANT POINT
There is no error in reasoning of High Court directing appellants to consider appointments of casual labourers to regular posts under the Memorandum dated 26-8-1985.

Headnote:Service Jurisprudence-Appellant taking decision to appoint LDC s on permanent basis as per their memorandum dated 26-8-1985 from casual labourers-High Court directed to consider respondents cases-Attained finality-Later Appellants passing Memo of 18-5-1997 restricting appointments from casual labourers upto 50%-Challenged in High Court-High Court holding cases of respondents had to be considered on the Memo dated 26-8-1985 and not of 18-5-1997-Whether correct? (Yes)-Appeal dismissed with clarification.
       Held : We find no error in the reasoning of the High Court. It must be held that the right of appointment accrued to the Ex-casual Labourers under the memorandum dated 26.8.1985, and therefore their cases for appointment have to be considered in accordance with that memorandum, particularly when such a right was declared by the High Court while allowing the first Writ Petition filed by the respondents. The later memorandum curtailing their right of appointment limiting it to 50% of the vacancies cannot be enforced as against them, particularly so when the matter had attained finality by an order of the High Court. (Para 10)
       We, accordingly, dispose of this appeal upholding the directions contained in the impugned judgment and order with the clarification that only the cases of eligible. Ex-casual Labourers, have to be considered in the light of the norms and guidelines laid down in the memorandum dated 26.8.1985, for appointment against the vacancies that existed then and were within the contemplation of the memorandum dated 26-08-1985. In calculating the number of vacancies which have already been filled up in accordance with the memorandum dated 26.08.1985, the appellants are entitled to count the vacancies filled up by appointment of the eligible Ex-casual Labourers earlier as claimed by them and subsequently by the Selection Committee constituted under memorandum dated 18.05.1997. The remaining vacancies, if any, shall be filled up within a period of six months from the date of this order by appointing eligible ex-casual labourers, if any. Their will be no order as to cost. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

B.P. Singh, J.-Special Leave granted.

2. The appellants herein namely, the A.P. State Electricity Board and its officers are aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 20-08-1999 in Writ Appeal No. 1183 of 1999, whereby the appeal preferred by them against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 1-7-1999 was dismissed. As a result, the appellants have been directed to consider the cases of the respondents herein for appointment in the light of the memorandum dated 26.8.1985 issued by the appellant Board, which provided for appointment of Ex-casual Labourers, who were found suitable and eligible, against vacant posts, on their being found suitable and eligible in accordance with the norms.

3. A few facts not in dispute may be noticed at the threshold. The respondents are the Ex-casual Labourers, who were engaged in the different circles of the A.P. State Electricity Board and had rendered service in the past. The appellant Board by its memorandum dated 26.8.1985 took a decision that the vacant posts of L.D.Cs./Revenue Cashiers and Typists/Steno-Typists in the Office Staff establishments and the vacant Helper/Watchmen, posts in the Operation & Maintenance/Construction Staff establishments as per the norms of the Operation Circle shall be filled in by considering the suitable and eligible candidates from among the Ex-casual Labourers after exhausting the existing Casual Labourers, if any, on one time basis. It was provided that the Ex-casual Labourers must have worked for atleast the number of days as specified in the memorandum. After considering the cases of eligible Ex-casual labourers for appointment to the asforesaid vacant posts, the remaining vacancies could be filled up as per the norms in the respective Operation Circle.

4. The respondents were aggrieved by the fact that in terms of the memorandum aforesaid they were neither considered nor appointed against the vacant posts that existed, for which they were suitable and eligible. They, therefore, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court being Writ Petition No. 407 of 1996 which came to be disposed of by an order of 29.3.1996 wherein it was conceded by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Board that the Writ Petition was covered by the order of the Court passed in Writ Petition No. 13560 of 1993 dated 7.10.1993 which had been followed by the Court in a number of matters. Accordingly, the Writ Petition preferred by the respondents was also disposed of in the same terms directing the respondents therein to consider the cases of the writ petitioners for regular appointment to the aforesaid posts in accordance with the memorandum dated 26.8.1985, if they were found eligible.

5. After the judgment was pronounced another memorandum dated 18.5.1997 was issued by the appellant Board. It appears that pursuant to discussions with the recognized Unions certain decisions were taken for filling up 50% of the existing vacancies in the specified initial recruitment cadres by Ex-casual Labourers who had obtained Court s Order. From the recorded proceedings it appears that it was decided to consider the cases of Ex-casual Labourers covered by Court Orders to fill up 50% of the vacancies. It was, accordingly, decided that the Ex-casual Labourers who were already interviewed, but failed in the test, be given a second chance in view of the Order passed by the High Court for appointment against 50% of the existing vacancies in accordance with the guidelines contained in the memorandum dated 26.8.1985 read with memorandum dated 14.9.1993. A Selection Committee was nominated for the said purpose.

6. The respondents herein again moved the High Court with a grievance that in view of the judgment and order dated 29.3.1996 they were interviewed, but had not been absorbed in service. In the aforesaid Writ Petition the appellant Board took the stand that pursuant to the order of the Court, a Selection Com

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1130

IMPORTANT POINTThere is no error in reasoning of High Court directing appellants to consider appointments of casual labourers to regular posts under the Memorandum dated 26-8-1985.

IMPORTANT POINT
There is no error in reasoning of High Court directing appellants to consider appointments of casual labourers to regular posts under the Memorandum dated 26-8-1985.