Back
Supervisors' Promotion Dreams Blocked? Greenlights FTA Regularization at SJVNL
In a significant ruling for public sector employment practices, the dismissed a writ petition by supervisory staff at (SJVNL), upholding the company's policy to regularize Fixed Tenure Appointees (FTAs) into executive roles. A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Romesh Verma ruled on , in Yug Raj Thakur and Ors. v. and Ors. (CWP No. 11021 of 2024), that such regularizations aren't " " when made through a rigorous, competitive process mirroring regular recruitment.
The Power Plant Power Struggle: Supervisors vs. Fast-Track FTAs
SJVNL, a joint venture between the Governments of India and Himachal Pradesh, operates a tiered workforce: unskilled workmen (W1-W2), skilled workmen (W3-W6), supervisors (S0-S4), and executives (E1-E8). Petitioners, regular supervisors at S1/S2 levels appointed via standard recruitment since 2007-2019, feared career stagnation as FTAs—hired temporarily via Advertisements 95/2021 and 105/2022—were set for regularization at E2 executive levels under HR Circulars 882/2023 and 912/2024.
These FTAs, selected after competitive exams and interviews for project-specific needs, underwent the same eligibility checks (qualifications, experience) as regulars but on fixed 3-year terms, extendable up to 5 years. The 2023 policy aimed to retain "trained & experienced manpower" for SJVNL's growth, later eased to 2-year eligibility with merit-based assessment (70% performance marks, 30% committee score). Petitioners, degree holders eyeing E2 promotions in 8-10 years per Supervisor Promotion Policy, claimed this leapfrogged them unfairly.
" ," Say Petitioners—But Why the Selective Outrage?
Led by , petitioners argued the FTA Scheme explicitly barred regularization claims: services were temporary, terminable on tenure end or poor performance, with to permanency. Regularizing FTAs violated this, , and precedents like State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (1992), mandating temporary staff yield to regulars, and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand (2008), warning against absorbing non-permanent staff over merit.
They highlighted deterrence: as regulars, they skipped FTA ads fearing job loss, but would have competed if permanency was hinted. Regularization without open competition allegedly created a "backdoor" to executives, blocking their merit-cum-seniority path (4-5 years per grade jump).
SJVNL Counters: Business Sense, Not Sneak Play
SJVNL, represented by Senior Advocates , , and for FTAs, defended the policy as employer prerogative under FTA Scheme Clause 16 (CMD's power to amend). FTAs matched regular rigor—no shortcuts—and resignations from prior jobs showed commitment. Petitioners' prior commendations of the policy (Annexure P-10) undercut grievances, they said.
Citing Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad (2019) and Maharashtra PSC v. Sandeep Shriram Warade (2019), counsel stressed courts can't micromanage eligibility zones. With 127 E2-E4 vacancies projected (656 sanctioned, 309 filled), SJVNL pledged 8 posts for petitioners' future promotions. Notably, petitioners applied but failed SJVNL's 2025 Executive Trainee (Ad 122/2025) selection.
Judicial Scrutiny: Merit Trumps Tenure, Precedents Hold Firm
The Bench dissected the FTA Scheme's objectives—urgent manpower without surplus risks—and noted CMD's amendment powers don't "reverse" fixed terms but adapt to needs. Rejecting "backdoor" tags, it emphasized:
“For rigors adopted in the process for appointment of Fixed Tenure, similar to the rigors and criteria applicable for regular appointment, the appointment of Fixed Term Appointees at initial stage, cannot be termed as a and, therefore, regularization of such appointment cannot be termed as an act, defeating the provisions prescribed for regular appointment.”
Piara Singh urged replacing temporaries with regulars, but here FTAs competed openly; Dayanand cautioned against wholesale absorption, inapplicable as SJVNL retained merit. Petitioners' " " faltered—they praised the policy earlier, assented to junior FTAs' regularization, and flunked 2025 selections. Status quo orders protected some FTAs pending outcome.
Key Observations
-
On Scheme Flexibility
:
"Scheme is for Fixed Tenure Basis, therefore, it cannot be converted into Scheme for engagement on Regular basis... By passage of time... the Company has every right to re-consider its earlier Policy."
-
Exposed
:
"Grievance of the petitioners is ‘personal in nature’... none of petitioners... could qualify for... Executive Trainee E-2."
-
No Adverse Impact
:
"Promotional avenues of the petitioners are not going to be affected adversely."
- Balanced Assurance : SJVNL undertook to reserve 8 posts for petitioners.
Petition Tossed: Regularization Stays, Future Doors Open (Sort Of)
The Court dismissed the petition, freeing prior regularizations (Ad 95/2021 FTAs) and lifting stays on others (Ad 105/2022). No quashing of Circulars P-6/P-7 or orders like 's interview notice.
Practical fallout: SJVNL bolsters talent retention amid expansion, validating FTA-to-regular paths if competitively sourced. Supervisors' hopes hinge on performance and reserved slots, underscoring no fundamental right to promotion, only consideration. As other sources note, this reinforces that
"appointments made through due advertisement and a competitive process comparable to regular recruitment"
dodge backdoor stigma, guiding PSUs nationwide.
