Summary
A power distribution company challenged High Court directions requiring it to consider an ex-casual labourer for appointment as Lower Division Clerk on par with two candidates placed below him in the list. The Supreme Court rejected the company's contention that the list was merely a list of eligible candidates and not a seniority list, upheld the direction to reconsider, but left the company free to examine its other objections (genuineness of the service certificate, absence of vacancies) while passing fresh orders within six weeks.
Issues
- Whether the list on which the High Court relied, in which the respondent appears at serial no. 22, was a seniority list of qualified ex-casual labourers or only a list of candidates eligible to be interviewed.
- Whether the respondent was entitled to have his case for appointment as Lower Division Clerk considered on par with candidates lower in the list who had been appointed pursuant to High Court orders.
- Whether the appellant's further objections (that the respondent's service certificate was not genuine and that no vacancy existed) could be decided by the Supreme Court.
Held
- The contention that the list relied on by the High Court was not a seniority list is rejected: the document is titled a seniority list of qualified candidates for the post of LDC, arranges candidates by date of first engagement, and the appellant's own affidavit admits that persons with fewer man-days than the respondent were appointed under the 11.03.2001 notification pursuant to High Court directions. Those appointees (BC-A and BC-B candidates) appear at serial nos. 23 and 28, below the respondent at serial no. 22. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- Since candidates placed lower in the seniority list with fewer man-days were appointed, the High Court correctly reasoned that the respondent's case must be considered by the appellant on par with them; the respondent's appointment cannot be rejected on the ground that the list is not a seniority list. (¶¶ 11, 15)
- The appellant's other grounds, that the respondent's contract-labour service certificate is not genuine (the contractor having deposed that the respondent did not work under him) and that no vacancy exists, are matters the Supreme Court cannot decide; the single judge and division bench had only directed reconsideration in the context of the relative facts, and the appellant may take these aspects into account while reconsidering the respondent for the post of LDC or any equivalent post in which a vacancy may exist. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
Result
Appeal disposed of. The appellant is directed to reconsider the respondent's case for appointment to the post of LDC or any equivalent vacant post, not rejecting it on the ground that the list is not a seniority list but free to consider its other objections, and to pass orders expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, the litigation having begun in 2008. No order as to costs; pending applications disposed of.