The court emphasized equal treatment in public employment, directing reconsideration of the respondent's appointment based on eligibility and seniority, despite challenges regarding the genuineness of his service certificate.

JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal arises from order dated 02.12.2020 by which the division bench of the High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ appeal against order dated 24.09.2018 wherein the learned single judge directed the appellant to consider the respondent’s appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk¹ [Hereinafter “LDC”] or any other suitable post or any other supernumerary post.

3. The short facts that are relevant are as follows. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board² [Hereinafter “APSEB”] issued a notification dated 18.05.1997 to fill up 50% vacancies in certain initial recruitment cadres, including LDCs, from ex-casual labourers category. Clauses 5 and 6 of this notification provided the guidelines for selection of candidates from this category, including age, educational qualifications, seniority, reservations, and selection committee. Under this policy, APSEB issued an advertisement dated 11.03.2001 for appointment to the post of LDC from ex- casual labourers category. The respondent sought to claim benefit under this policy and applied but his application was rejected on 21.01.2002 stating that his service certificate of contract labour was not genuine. The appellant challenged this order by way of a writ petition and the High Court directed the appellant to verify his certificate by order dated 24.12.2002.

4. Once again, by order dated 13.03.2003, the respondent’s case was rejected as the contractor who issued the service certificate deposed that the respondent did not work under him. Further, by order dated 14.04.2003, the appellant found that the respondent did not qualify the typewriting exam and hence could not be considered for the post. The respondent challenged the order dated 14.04.2003 in a writ petition, which came to be disposed of by the High Court order dated 01.11.2004 holding that the typewriting qualification is not required and therefore, directed the appellant to reconsider his case afresh.

5. Pursuant to the above-referred direction of the High Court, the appellant’s Review Committee re-examined the respondent’s case, and yet again rejected his appointment by order dated 28.03.2006. This time, on a new ground that there is no vacancy in the BC-B category in LDC cadre under the 50% quota earmarked for ex-casual labourers and that no BC-B candidate who has put in lesser man-days than the respondent was appointed. On 15.11.2006, the appellant issued a further notification withdrawing the policy dated 18.05.1997 w.e.f. 15.09.2006, subject to the outcome of any pending cases before the High Court or this Court.

6. The respondent filed a writ petition, only in the year 2008, challenging the Review Committee’s order dated 28.03.2006. Initially, by order dated 26.04.2017, the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay in approaching the High Court and in view of the subsequent withdrawal of the policy. However, the respondent’s review petition came to be allowed by the learned single judge by order dated 24.09.2018 on the ground that the respondent’s name appears at S. No. 22 in the list of eligible candidates, while those at S. Nos. 23 and 28 in the same list were appointed. The Court reasoned that since those who were relatively less meritorious were considered favourably pursuant to the High Court’s direction in a separate writ petition, the respondent must be treated at par with them as he is in a relatively better position. Hence, the Court directed the appellant to consider the respondent’s case for appointment to the post of LDC or any other suitable post or any suitable supernumerary post in the same manner as the other case. The appellant’s writ appeal came to be dismissed by the order impugned herein, on a similar reasoning that the respondent’s case must be treated at par with the other appointed candidates as he is higher in the list of eligible candidates.

7. While issuing notice by the order dated 22.02.2021, this Court took note of the