Point of Law :
though mere selection does not give any vested right to the selected candidate to be appointed, at the same time, when a large number of posts are lying vacant and the selection process has been followed, then the employer must satisfy the court as to why it did not resort to and appoint the selected candidates; just because discretion is vested in the authority, it does not mean that it can be exercised arbitrarily. According to the Court, though it is not incumbent upon the employer to fill all the posts, it must give reasons and satisfy the court that it had some grounds for not appointing the candidates who found place in the panel

ORDER :

1. Since common issues of law and fact arise for consideration in these Writ Petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are aspirants for the post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) which posts were notified by the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation Limited (for short ‘APTRANSCO’) on 15.12.2011 in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh prior to its bifurcation with effect from 01.06.2014 into the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. A total of 339 posts of Sub-Engineers (Electrical) had been notified for direct recruitment in the said notification. The written examination for qualified and eligible candidates was conducted on 15.04.2012 and the age requirement was specified as between 18 to 36 years as on 01.07.2011.

3. Out of the 339 posts, 133 posts were for Telangana Area of the then composite State of Andhra Pradesh and the balance 206 posts belong to Andhra Area of the erstwhile State of A.P. and the posts were to be filled up 20% open and 80% local quota basis.

4. There was a clause in the said notification which prescribed consideration of cases of in-service contract workers also by giving them weightage marks of 45 depending on the length of the service in the APTRANSCO/Discoms i.e. 2½ marks per every half year i.e. 180 days service as contract worker as per a Memorandum of Settlement dated 18.12.2010 reached before the Additional Commissioner of Labour and Conciliation Officer, Government of A.P. between Representatives of APTRANSCO and recognized Trade Unions.

5. This clause was challenged by some persons in W.P. No. 3753 of 2012 and batch.

6. On 09.12.2013, the said batch of Writ Petitions was disposed of restricting the weightage marks to 20% only.

7. In the mean time on 16.01.2012, the APTRANSCO issued another notification to fill up another 1648 posts of Junior Lineman vacancies fixing the date of examination. This also contained the same clause mentioned above with regard to weightage marks for in-service contract workers. There was a subsequent notification also issued on 26.02.2012 by the erstwhile APTRANSCO for filling up the posts of Sub-Engineers.

8. The common order in W.P. No. 3753 of 2012 and batch was challenged in W.A. No. 110 of 2014 and batch by some contract labour employees.

9. On 03.06.2014, a Division Bench of this Court modified the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 3753 of 2012 and batch and issued the following directions:

“(a) The restriction of marks for weightage for the service candidates to 20% as directed by the learned single judge, is upheld.

(b) The contract labour, who are otherwise eligible to apply, shall be awarded 1 mark for each completed block of six months of service subject to maximum of 20%.

(c) The other directions issued by the learned Single Judge are affirmed and upheld.

(d) A fresh written test shall be conducted by the respective Discoms for the respective posts for ‘80’ marks, by informing all the applicants at least four (4) weeks in advance before conducting of the examinations.

(e) The entire process shall be completed within a period of six (6) months from today.”

10. Aggrieved by the said order of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 110 of 2014 and batch, the APTRANSCO filed SLP (C) C.C. No. 20284 of 2014 in the Supreme Court of India to the extent the Division Bench had directed conduct of fresh written test for 80 marks is concerned.

11. On 18.12.2014, the said SLP and batch were dismissed with a non-speaking order.

12. Thereafter, Review W.A.M.P. No. 4180 of 2014 in W.A. No. 110 of 2014 and Review W.A.M.P. No. 4158 of 2014 in W.A. No. 610 of 2014 were filed by A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited and A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Limited. They were dismissed on 26.12.2014.

13. This was questioned in SLP (C) C.C. No. 8266 of 2015 and SLP (C)