Assistant Engineers vs Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 40918

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J
Assistant Engineers – Appellant
Versus
Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 31999 OF 2017

Important Points

Seniority and eligibility for promotion must be based strictly on regularized service within a cadre. Ad hoc or training periods cannot be counted as qualifying service for promotion unless explicitly permitted by service regulations, and administrative authorities cannot grant arbitrary relaxations to override these mandatory requirements.

Subject

Service Law - Seniority and Promotion

Act Referred

APSEB Service Regulations: Reg.14(a)(1), Reg.41, Reg.4, Reg.3(d)
Right to Information Act

Headnote

(A) Service Law - Appointment by transfer - Qualifying service - Regulation of seniority - Candidates appointed on ad hoc, contract or temporary basis cannot claim service benefits until regularization in accordance with rules - Training period of junior staff cannot be treated as qualifying service for promotion where regulations explicitly mandate completion of a specific period of active service - Benefit of seniority flows only from the date an employee is borne in the cadre on a regular basis. (Paras 11, 12, 14, 15)

(B) Promotion - Relaxation of rules - Administrative authorities cannot grant retrospective relaxations to count non-qualifying periods (such as training) towards eligibility for promotion in the absence of explicit enabling provisions in service regulations. (Paras 19, 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
The dispute concerns the relative seniority of direct recruits and candidates appointed by transfer in an engineering cadre. The petitioners, recruited as assistant engineers, challenged the seniority list which placed them below unofficial respondents who had been promoted by transfer. The unofficial respondents were initially appointed as trainee sub-engineers and their training period was retrospectively counted by the management to satisfy the mandatory four-year experience requirement for promotion, a move the petitioners contested as violative of service regulations.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the promotion of the unofficial respondents was illegal because it relied on counting an initial training period as active service, contrary to express service regulations. The management's arbitrary relaxation, not supported by formal orders or regulation-based authority, infringed upon the seniority of the petitioners who had been validly regularized.

Issues: Whether the training period of sub-engineers constitutes qualifying service for promotion to an engineering cadre, and whether the respondent authority could lawfully grant relaxation to count such training periods toward the mandatory four years of service.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that service benefits, including seniority, can only accrue from the date of regular absorption into a cadre. Where service regulations explicitly exclude training periods from being counted for probation or increments, the administrative authority lacks the power to unilaterally relax these rules to artificially satisfy eligibility criteria for promotion, especially when doing so prejudices the seniority of other regularly appointed staff.

Result: Writ Petition allowed. Impugned promotion proceedings set aside and seniority restored.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D. Prakash Reddy, D. Madhavi
For the Respondents: Ch. Vidyasagar Rao, K. Udaya Sri, M.V. Rama Rao

Table of Content
1. historical context of seniority disputes between direct recruits and promotees. (Para 1 , 2)
2. contention regarding inclusion of training periods in qualifying service for promotion. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. validity of relaxation of recruitment rules and impact on seniority. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. illegality of promoting personnel before meeting mandatory qualifying service requirements. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

O R D E R:

Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the action of the 1st Respondent – Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (NPDCL) in placing Petitioners below the unofficial Respondents 3 to 15 in the final seniority list in the category of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), dated 27.04.2017 as it is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to APSEB Service Regulations .

2. The case of petitioners is that, they possess B.E. (Electrical) degrees, applied for the post of Assistant Engineer in response to Notification dated 02.11.2001 issued by AP TRANSCO. Following a written examination and interview process, appointments were made on a yearly contract basis through proceedings dated 02.09.2002. The rank and allotment specifics have been detailed, highlighting, among others, petitioners’ allocation to A.P.N.P.D.C.L under BC-B, PH Roaster point in Backlog quota. After the fulfillment of a two-year contract, their services were regularized effective from 01.12.2004 vide proceedings dated 23.12.2004 under Regulation 14(a)(1) of APSEB Service Regulations Part-II as adopted by APNPDCL. The process dispensed with the need for an additional contract agreement.

2.1. While so, the unofficial respondents 3 to 15 were initially appointed as Trainee Sub-Engineers through proceedings dated 21.12.1999, joining in December 1999 and January 2000. After completing one-year training by January 2001 and obtaining B.E./B.Tech qualification, these respondents were promoted to Assistant Engineer (Electrical) posts by transfer, as per Northern Office Orders dated 21.04.2004, 29.04.2004 and 13.06.2005. Here, it is the case of petitioners, recruitment to Assistant Engineer posts occurs via direct recruitment and by transfer from Graduate Sub-Engineers. For recruitment by transfer, candidate must have four years of service as a Sub-Engineer or equivalent. This route is limited to 10% of recruitment events, with transferees to be ranked below the junior-most Assistant Engineer/Trainee at the time of appointment, a condition specifically established by B.P.Ms.No.354 dated 12.12.1994.

2.2. Both petitioners and unofficial respondents were recruited under APSEB Service Regulation Part II, with the latter initially considered junior to petitioners. This arrangement appeared in the provisional seniority list prepared on 04.01.2008, where directly recruited AEs of 2002 were listed from Sl.Nos. 2 to 72, with petitioners at 20, 41 and 59. Direct recruits of 2003 were shown at 74 to 98, and those appointed by transfer in April 2004 against the 2003 direct recruitment were at 99 to 111, as per B.P.Ms.No.354 dated 12.12.1994. Subsequently, APTRANSCO issued T.O.O. (Addl. Secy.Per) Ms. 231 dated 23.12.2008, stipulating that the contractual service rendered by Assistant Engineers until regularization was to be treated as regular service strictly for seniority fixation, excluding financial and pensionary benefits. The 04.01.2008 provisional seniority list was confirmed on 08.05.2009, maintaining the same positions even after objections, which were dismissed based on BP.Ms.No:354.

2.3. Aggrieved, some Assistant Engineers appointed by transfer challenged the list and T.O.O.No.231 dated 23.12.2008 by filing Writ Petitions No. 958, 1150 and 1151 of 2009. By the common order dated 18.10.2011, this Court ruled that appointments by transfer or promotion must occur concurrently with direct recruitment, regularizing contract service was permissible under regulations if appointments met set procedures and condit