THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.929 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited for the appellants; Ms. B.Rachna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Md.Baseer Riyaz, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2. The present writ appeal is filed by the appellants/respondents against the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14422 of 2017 along with other analogous writ petitions i.e. W.P.Nos.6736 of 2017 and W.P No.9210 of 2019, whereby the subject writ petition was allowed with a direction to the appellants to appoint the respondent as Junior Lineman or in any suitable other post with retrospective effect and all consequential benefits.

Factual Matrix

3. The respondent/writ petitioner, a contract labourer, sought absorption under B.P. Ms. No.36 dated 18.05.1997, which provided for filling up 50% of existing vacancies in initial recruitment cadres from among ex-casual labour, contract labour, and Village Electricity Workers. His claim was considered and rejected on multiple occasions on 05.05.2000, 06.08.2001 and 17.02.2016 on the ground that all vacancies under the scheme had been filled and his turn had not arisen. The policy itself was subsequently withdrawn with retrospective effect from 15.09.2006. Despite this, the respondent continued to file representations and writ petitions, leading to the impugned order.

Submissions on behalf of the appellants

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri G.Vidya Sagar appearing for the appellants contended that:

i) The respondent’s claim was repeatedly considered and rejected by speaking orders, which attained finality.

ii) All vacancies under B.P. Ms. No.36 were exhausted as per the mandate of the policy.

iii) The policy was validly withdrawn in 2006 and no right to appointment survived thereafter.

iv) The appointment of Sri P. Rajaiah and others was made under specific Court orders and corporate instructions and in different factual and legal contexts, and cannot be used to claim parity.

v) The respondent’s service certificates were unreliable and did not satisfy the criteria under the policy.

vi) The respondent’s persistent litigation amounted to an abuse of the process of law.

Submissions on behalf of the respondent

5. Learned Senior Counsel Ms. B.Rachna Reddy appearing for the respondent contended that:

i) The respondent had rendered continuous service and was eligible for absorption.

ii) Similarly situated persons were appointed even after the withdrawal of the policy.

iii) The appellants acted in a discriminatory and arbitrary manner violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

iv) The respondent’s representations ought to have been considered in light of the appointments made in favour of others.

6. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

Analysis and reasoning

7. After careful consideration of the submissions and perusal of the record, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition. Our reasons are as follows:

a) Finality of Administrative and Judicial Decisions The respondent’s claim was rejected by speaking orders issued in 2000, 2001, and 2016. These orders were never challenged and attained finality. The principle of finality in administrative and quasi-judicial decisions is well-established. The respondent cannot be permitted to re-agitate the same issue repeatedly, especially when the earlier decisions were rendered in compliance with court orders and after due application of mind.

b) Exhaustion of Vacancies B.P. Ms. No.36 provided for absorption only against 50% of the vacancies existing as on 18.05.1997. The appellants have categorically stated that all such vacancies were filled based on seniority and man-days worked, and the respondent’s turn did not arise. The r