G.Srinivas vs Northern Power Distribution Company Of ... on 15 October, 2025

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

G.Srinivas vs Northern Power Distribution Company Of ... on 15 October, 2025

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

               WRIT PETITION No. 31999 OF 2017

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 2 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 3 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, t 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 conditions, and that the Board could treat contractual service as regular service under qualifying 4 circumstances. Writ Appeals No. 1150 and 1151 of 2011 and batch filed by the unofficial respondents were allowed setting aside the earlier order and quashing T.O.O.No.231 dated 23.12.2008. Review and SLP (C) Nos. 13858-13859 of 2015 were also dismissed on 23.01.2017.

2.4. Following quashing of T.O.O.No. 231, dated 23.12.2008, the 1st Respondent, adhering to the Hon'ble Apex Court order dated 23.01.2017, prepared a provisional seniority list dated 13.02.2017, wherein unofficial Respondents 3 to 15 were elevated to ranks 2 to 14 while the 2002 direct recruits were placed at 16 to 41, and 2003 direct recruits at 56 to 71. Petitioners' objections, submitted against the revised provisional list dated 13.02.2017, were rejected by order dated 24.04.2017, and the final seniority list certificate Memo dated 27.04.2017 mirrored the provisional list, showing petitioners at Sl.Nos. 25, 32 and 38. Pursuant to the information sought under the Right to Information Act regarding transfers, details issued by the General Manager (Ser.) in proceedings dated 03.12.2007, 14.02.2008, and 22.05.2008 recorded that training period for Sub-Engineers had been counted towards qualifying service for appointment by transfer and that the unofficial respondents received a relaxation in 2004. CGM-HRD, Warangal, confirmed 5 the unofficial respondents joined as Trainee Sub-Engineers and regularized after one year, yet qualifying service as per the regulations should exclude this initial training period. Nonetheless, Respondents counted the training period, a move the petitioners allege is illegal, arbitrary, and against the regulations.

2.5. Petitioners maintain that their seniority as 2002 direct recruits was always protected, as reflected in the provisional seniority list of 04.01.2008, confirmed list of 08.05.2009, and earlier communications. The provisional seniority list communicated on 15.04.2006 indicated that seniority of AEs appointed by transfer from Sub-Engineers with graduate qualification would be finalized alongside directly recruited AEs of 2003 and those being regularized. Commencement of probation orders dated 23.01.2006 for appointment by transfer explicitly stated them as provisional, not a seniority list, to be finalized with the regularization of direct recruits. The 11/2003 direct recruits, after completing two years contract, were to be placed on regular scale just as petitioners had been regularized in 10/2004 and 12/2004. 2.6. Direct recruits of 11/2003 made documented representations on 29.07.2008 and 20.10.2008 to cancel or 6 modify probation and regularization orders related to Respondents 3 to 15 and finally filed Writ Petition No. 6811 of 2009 to contest alleged arbitrary appointments by transfer under N.O.O.(CGM-HRD)Ms.No.23 dated 21.04.2004 and N.O.O.(CGM-HRD)Ms.No.31 dated 29.04.2004. This Court, while hearing their plea, maintained protection for petitioners' seniority, clarifying that appointment by transfer incumbents would take the lowest rank beneath existing trainees as of the relevant N.O.O. The department's rejection of objections made in 2008 by respondent AEs stated unambiguously that, in compliance with the rules, transferee AEs placed below 2003 direct recruits could not be placed above the 2002 direct recruits. Based on these events and procedural steps, petitioners assert that departmental procedures, orders and APSEB Service Regulations had consistently protected their seniority; therefore, no cause previously arose to challenge the transfer appointments of respondents. However, due to the Supreme Court ruling, they are now positioned as juniors to Respondents 3 to 15, prompting the present writ petition and explaining the delay in its filing.

2.7. Services in this context are classified as Engineering, Personal, and General, with both the petitioners 7 and unofficial respondents falling under Engineering Service as defined in Annexure-I to Part-III of the Regulations. Appointment was, until 1994, solely by direct recruitment, but the 1994 amendment permitted up to 10% of posts to be filled by transfer from graduate Sub-Engineers. Both modes have thereafter been contemporaneously utilized; the petitioners were direct appointees in 2002, while the unofficial respondents were appointees by transfer for 2003 vacancies, always ranked below the petitioners until 24.04.2017 seniority list. For the first time, this list reversed earlier positioning, which petitioners assert as illegal and contrary to the service regulations. 2.8. Petitioners refer to Part III, Annexure IV, which states that for Branch VI, direct recruits shall be on training for a period of one year and they shall be paid a stipend from time to time and the period of training shall not be counted for probation or increments. This Regulation prescribes that Sub- Engineers' training periods should not be counted towards promotion, increments, or seniority. According to petitioners, the unofficial respondents completed Sub-Engineer training in December 2000 and January 2001; thus, only after December 2004 and January 2005 would they be eligible for promotion under the four-year qualifying calculation. In contradiction to 8 these terms, the unofficial respondents were promoted/appointed to Assistant Engineer positions on 21.04.2004 and 24.04.2004 with relaxation not allowed by the Regulations, making such appointments illegal. 2.9. Further, memo dated 28.11.2003 by APTRANSCO strictly prohibited any relaxation regarding educational qualification or years of service, expressly reiterating that Sub- Engineer training shall not be counted for promotion or increments. This direction corroborates petitioners' contention that, if the training period is excluded, respondents 3 to 15 lacked the mandatory four years' service for appointment by transfer in 2004. Consequently, such appointments are alleged to be illegal and in violation of regulations. Qualifying service, as required by Regulations, was not met by Respondents 3 to 15, rendering their appointments by transfer to Assistant Engineer both illegal and voidable. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. By order dated 12.10.2017, in view of the submission made on behalf of petitioners that in similar circumstances, interim suspension of same impugned seniority list was granted in Writ Petition No. 19908 of 2017 on 25.06.2017, even in this Writ Petition, it was directed that there should be interim suspension as prayed for three weeks. 9

4. The counter affidavit filed by Respondents 1 and 2 cites the erstwhile APSEB's B.P. Ms. No.354, dated 12-12-1994, amending service regulations to allow 10% of Assistant Engineer vacancies to be filled by transfer from Graduate Sub-Engineers with a minimum of four years' service in certain categories, subject to no service weightage and placement below the junior most Assistant Engineer/Trainee as of appointment date. After completion of direct recruitment, vacancy extent of 10% for transfers is to be effected accordingly. APSEB's unbundling into APTRANSCO and APGENCO, and later of APTRANSCO into APNPDCL, APCPDCL, APEPDCL and APSPDCL. It is stated, the training system in power utilities of the Combined State was dispensed with from 29-01-2001 as per TOO Ms. No. 251 dated 29-01-2001 and it was decided to recruit the employees on contract basis. As per the said decision, from 2002 to 2007, employees including petitioners were recruited on contract basis against regular vacancies and regularized after two years, with due reservation rules. However, APTRANSCO did not consider Graduate Sub-Engineers for transfer appointment against 2002 vacancies under BP Ms. No. 354 due to unavailability. In 2003, 55 Assistant Engineers were recruited and regularized in 2006; unofficial respondents (except the 5th respondent) were transferred and posted as in-charge Assistant Engineers as no 10 eligible Graduate Sub-Engineers were available. Except the 13th respondent, unofficial respondents were appointed as Trainee Sub-Engineers in December 1999/January 2000 and regularized in December 2000/January 2001; the 13th respondent was trainee from 23-12-1998 and regular from 23- 12-1999. TOO 251 dated 29-01-2001 provided that training period counts for probation, increment, leave, and pension. Considering the absence of Graduate Sub-Engineers with four years' service (except 13th respondent), relaxation was granted to include training period as qualifying service for unofficial respondents' transfer appointments as Assistant Engineers; these appointments were effected under N.O.O (CGM-HRD) Ms. Nos. 23 and 31 dated 21-04-2004 and 29-04-2004, with the 5th respondent appointed by transfer vide N.O.O Ms. No. 68 dated 13-06-2005 and notionally with effect from 01-06-2004 as per N.O.O Ms. No. 361 dated 03-02-2009.

4.1. The affidavit references the provisional seniority list dated 15-04-2006 issued without inclusion of petitioners and 2002 recruits. Challenging the same, Writ Petition No. 9041 of 2006 was filed wherein stay of promotions till finalizing final seniority list after objections was ordered. As per BP Ms. No. 354, transfers from Graduate Sub-Engineers are limited to 10% 11 vacancies, with appointees taking lowest rank below junior most trainees. Since training system was dispensed with from 29-01-2001, contract recruitment was followed. The provisional seniority list of 04-01-2008 placed unofficial respondents below 2002 and 2003 contract recruitee regularized in 2004 and 2006, respecting BP Ms. No. 354 principles. TOO 231 dated 23-12-2008 and NOO (CGM-HRD) Ms. No. 311 dated 24-12-2008 counted contract service for seniority but faced interim stay by this Court. Clarification Memo dated 23-09-2009 included Assistant Engineer (Contract) under trainee categories. Objections by unofficial respondents to their provisional seniority were rejected per Memo dated 08-05-2009, affirming seniority placements as per BP Ms. No. 354, placing unnamed twelve transferred Assistant Engineers between Sl. Nos. 99 and 110, and that conditions for promotion and seniority for converted Additional Assistant Engineers differ as per BP Ms. No. 596 dated 06-06-1978 with 50% service weightage. Regularization and probation commencement orders dated 23-01-2006 expressly stated probation commencement without seniority list effect and called for integration with directly recruited Assistant Engineers in regular scale. Additional seniority decisions, such as in Sri D. Mallesham's case, place him below Sri J. Kiran Kumar as per transfer order 12 conditions. Notionally, Sri Ch. Satyanarayana's seniority is fixed below Sri V. Sateesh Kumar as per administrative delays. The final seniority list dated 08-05-2009 placed unofficial respondents below directly-recruited petitioners, subject to review pending court outcomes on NOO 311. The 5th respondent was positioned at Sl. No. 102 by virtue of notional appointment as per N.O.O. (CGM-HRD) Ms. No. 361 dated 03-02-2009. Promotions to Assistant Divisional Engineers occurred on finalized seniority and petitions challenging lists were dismissed by this Court, with Division Bench quashing TOO 231 and ruling seniority reckoned only from regularization date. Review petitions and SLPs were dismissed and NOO 311 and related orders were rescinded by successive NOO Ms. Nos. 14, 15, and 29 dated 24-01-2014, 25-01-2014, and 10-02-2017 respectively.

4.2. Following this, a revised provisional seniority list as of 31-05-2010 was issued by Memo No. CMD/CGM(HRD) dated 13-02-2017 placing unofficial respondents above 2002 and 2003 direct recruits aligning with Writ Appeal No. 1104 of 2011 common judgment dated 17-09-2013, and petitioners filed objections. These were rejected vide Memo dated 24-04-2017 and final seniority list confirmed on 27-04-2017. 13 Petitioners' assertion that Graduate Sub-Engineers were considered for transfer appointments against 2002 direct recruitments per BP Ms. No. 354 is denied for non-availability of eligible candidates (except the 13th respondent). The Board extended relaxation of one-year service for counting training locally as one-time concession for unofficial respondents appointed in 2004 transfers, subject to lowest rank placement below junior trainees. Probation orders dated 23-01-2006 clarify seniority list integration later. The Board relies on Regulation 41 (relaxation power) and Regulation 4 (interpretation) of APSEB Service Regulations, binding all.

4.3. It is stated, despite unofficial respondents' appointment by transfer while 2002 and 2003 direct recruits worked on contract, unofficial respondents were placed below contract recruits in the provisional seniority list dated 04-01- 2008 as per BP Ms. No. 354 spirit. Objections opposing this list were rejected and final list issued on 08-05-2009, with the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 6811 of 2009. Seniority reckoning changed only after the common judgment dated 17-09-2013 in Writ Appeal No. 1104/2011 and batch, thereafter placing unofficial respondents above petitioners and other direct recruits.

4.4. Board's Regulation 41 relaxation powers and TOO 251 dated 29-01-2001 training period counting for probation, increment, leave, and pension are cited to justify the inclusion of training period for unofficial respondents' transfer appointments. Petitioners' own contract service was regularized controversially, with Board granting relaxations. Allocation of posts and service regularizations used these principles, precluding petitioners from contesting relaxations granted to unofficial respondents selectively. It is further stated, regularized unofficial respondents' seniority was fixed above petitioners post 2013 High Court ruling. Claim of any irregularity in such fixation or relaxation denied. Litigation concerns appointment of unofficial respondents years before, while both parties have since been promoted Assistant Divisional Engineers. Suspension of seniority list dated 27-04- 2017 impedes promotions, causing operational hardships. Respondents pray to vacate interim order dated 12-10-2017 and dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. The counter affidavit filed by Respondents 3, 4 and 6 to 15 asserts, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and issues already settled by the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court judgments, and is barred by delay and laches, as the 15 appointments in question date back to 21-04-2004. It is stated, except the 13th respondent, all were appointed as Sub- Engineers by direct recruitment in 1999 with diploma qualifications, with the 13th respondent appointed as Trainee Sub-Engineer in December 1998, all later acquiring B.Tech degrees by May 2002. Based on their B.Tech degrees, they were transferred and posted as in-charge Assistant Engineers via Memo dated 12-11-2003 and regularly appointed by transfer per N.O.O (CGM-HRD) Ms. No. 23 dated 21-04-2004 with regular pay scales. Probation was declared complete on 31-05- 2005 vide Memo dated 18-06-2007. These respondents bring out the facts as was done by official respondents.

6. The additional counter affidavit filed by Respondents 8 to 10 and 11 to 15 states that petitioners were granted relaxation from Service Regulations and exemptions from terms and conditions of the notification at the time of their appointment on a yearly contract basis, including granting them time scale of pay in 2004, regularization of service as Assistant Engineers vide Memo dated 08-10-2008 with retrospective effect from 2004, and promotions as Assistant Divisional Engineers. Various relaxations were also accorded for contract service counting towards leave, Automatic Advancement Scheme, and 16 service weightage increments, among others. Therefore, the petitioners, having benefitted from several relaxations and having their services regularized after respondents' appointment/promotion as Assistant Engineers, possess no right to challenge respondents' appointments or promotions. 6.1. It is stated, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh issued the notification dated 02-11-2001 on behalf of all power companies, including the first respondent, calling for applications from engineering graduates for 24 temporary Assistant Engineer (Electrical) posts in the first respondent company for yearly contract basis. The respondents, except the 9th respondent, who were already working as regular Sub- Engineers, did not apply due to the temporary, contract nature of the posts. The 9th respondent, though selected with appointment order dated 22-04-2002, did not join due to the one-year tenure limitation. Initially, only 24 selected candidates were appointed per the notification on 22-04-2002. Petitioners were not selected for these posts and were appointed subsequently in October and December 2004 in excess of the notified posts, with conditions stating they would not be regarded as service members nor entitled to preferential rights for any other appointment.

6.2. The assertion continues that petitioners and other contract Assistant Engineers were appointed as regular Assistant Engineers with time scale of pay from 01-10-2004 and 01-12-2004 but subject to conditions that they be placed below Assistant Engineers appointed to the regular pay scale prior to those dates. Petitioners gave undertakings not to claim any benefits for contract service. Their regularization is claimed to contravene initial contract appointment conditions and service regulations, which lack a provision for appointment by regularization. Therefore, petitioners have no inherent right to be regularized from a specific date; rather, their services were regularized only by rule relaxation. Based on that date, petitioners cannot challenge respondents' promotion as Assistant Engineers from 21-04-2004, especially given that, at the time of respondents' promotion, petitioners were only contract employees and only later, entered AE cadre under conditions placing them below respondents appointed to the regular time scale. Petitioners, absent from the AE cadre as per service regulations on respondents' promotion date, are held to have no right to challenge those promotions.

6.3. The affidavit disputes petitioners' contentions that they were seniors to respondents until the 2011 Writ Appeal 18 No.1104 of 2011 and batch orders and renamed seniority list, stating that from December 2004 regularization orders, petitioners knew they would be junior in seniority. It references an annual appraisal report called on 15-05-2005 by the Chief General Manager of the first respondent which showed respondents senior to contract Asst. Engineers including petitioners, whose claim to seniority above respondents only surfaced in 2009 following pressure through associations; that seniority was later set aside by this Court. The 5th respondent, similarly placed in Writ Petition No. 958 of 2009 filed by respondents challenging seniority, had already raised the issue of minimum service relaxation in their favour via counter affidavit and Writ Appeal. Petitioners cannot reopen these settled issues post issuance of the seniority list dated 27-04- 2017 based on appeal orders. Being aware of seniority-related cases from 2008 to 2013 and having delayed contesting promotions issued in 2004, petitioners are barred from now challenging these promotions after 13 years and following adverse court and Supreme Court rulings. The writ petition is thus liable for dismissal on delay and laches.

6.4. The affidavit further states that respondents were promoted as Assistant Engineers in the quota reserved for 19 Graduate Sub-Engineers because no eligible graduates completing four years' service existed during 2002 and 2003. Similar relaxations were granted in 2002 for promotion of Additional Assistant Engineers and Assistant Engineers to Assistant Divisional Engineers, waiving minimum required service of 8 years and 5 years, respectively. Petitioners were themselves promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineers relaxing minimum AE service of 5 years vide N.O.O. Ms. No. 301 dated 19-01-2008, also granted increments and special grade pay counting contract service contrary to the terms of their appointments and service regulations. Additionally, the first respondent issued N.O.O. No. 29 dated 01-05-2009 allowing counting of training periods for pension and other benefits. Petitioners are therefore precluded from selectively challenging the relaxations granted by the Board to respondents based solely on the fortuitous fact of their regularization on 01-12-2004.

7. Petitioners filed rejoinders reiterating the averments in their writ affidavit.

8. Heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Smt. D. Madhavi, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri Ch. Vidyasagar Rao, learned Senior 20 Counsel on behalf of Smt. K. Udaya Sri, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 and Sri M.V. Rama Rao, learned counsel for Respondents 3 to 15.

9. Having heard learned counsel on either side and having perused the material on record, it is clear that there is seniority dispute of Assistant Engineers (A.Es.) between unofficial respondents, who were initially appointed as Sub- Engineers in 12/1999 and 0/2001 and petitioners, who are direct-recruited Assistant Engineers and initially appointed as contract AEs. in 10/2002 and regularised with effect from 01.12.2004 in NPDCL, Warangal.

10. Petitioners challenged the relaxation given by the respondent company to the unofficial respondents without issuing any order in the form of NOO and computed the training period of one year held during the Sub-Engineer cadre, as qualified service and effected promotion as AEs. to 13 candidates in 04/2004, which is against B.P.Ms.No. 354, dated 12-12-1994 and Annexure- IV in Part-III of APSEB Service Regulation. The grounds for challenge are: relaxation was not mentioned anywhere in the order(s) in the earlier court cases filed by the parties to this Writ Petition on the matter of considering the contract service as seniority purpose to petitioners by T.O.O 231, dated 23.12.2008 (NOO 311), wherein 21 the unofficial respondents initially filed Writ Petition No.1563 of 2008 challenging TOO-231/NOO-311 and they did not get any relief; then they filed Writ Appeals No. 1150 and 1151 of 2011 and succeeded.

11. Then, petitioners filed Review W.A.M.P. (SR).No. 201482 of 2013 in Writ Appeals and SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court and finally, the Court set aside T.O.O 231, dated 23.12.2008 in Jan-2017, consequently, petitioner's seniority during the contract period of two years of service was lost from 2002 to 2004 and considered their service from the date of regularization i.e. 01.10.2004 and 01.12.2004. Subsequently, after the judgment in 2017, the present Writ Petition was filed challenging the relaxation given to the unofficial respondents on considering their ad hoc/temporary period of training period rendered during Sub-Engineer cadre on the same grounds of judgment in Writ Appeal No. 1151 of 2011. In the said judgment, the Court observed as under:

" From the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above cases, it is abundantly manifest that a person who is appointed on ad- hoc basis (or) contract bases (or) a temporary basis to discharge the functions in a particular post cannot be said to be in service till such time his appointment is regularized subject to the relevant Rules and Regulations governing such appointment. It was held that any method adopted contrary to the said law is held to be erroneous and unsustainable in law. Further, once the employee is borne in the cadre 22 on regular basis only, then he is entitled to all the benefits flowing there from".

12. Applying the above principle, petitioners state that once the employee is borne in the cadre on regular basis, then only he is entitled to all the benefits flowing there from. The orders of respondent company to the unofficial respondents as Sub-Engineers clearly indicated that, they were appointed on temporary basis vide memo dated 21.12.1999 and they were also informed in the same order itself that their appointment as Sub-Engineer now ordered is purely under emergency provisions and would be liable for termination at any time without any notice and without assigning any reasons therefor. Hence, the period of service rendered as Sub-Engineers from 1999/2000 to 2000/2001 shall not be considered and benefit will flow from the date of regularisation in Sub-Engineer cadre ie. 12/2000 to 01/2001 and they become eligible for the next promotion as Assistant Engineer in terms of B.P.Ms. No. 354, dated 12.12.1994 only after completion of four years of service.

13. It is to be noted, prior to 1994, erstwhile APSEB recruited Assistant Engineer (AE) cadre by Direct Recruitment only and named them as AE/Trainee and upon the request of existing Sub-Engineers, those who acquired Graduation in Engineering, APSEB amended the service regulation vide 23 B.P.Ms.No:354, dated 12-12-1994 and made a provision to promote them as AE (appointment by transfer as AE). The operative portion of BP.Ms.354 is as under:

" Graduate Sub-Engineers with minimum of four of service in the category of Sub-Engineer shall be considered for appointment by transfer as AE.

a) Such recruitment from among graduate sub-engineers shall be limited to 10% of the vacancies at the time of each recruitment.

b) They are not entitled for any service weightage.

c) They have to take lowest rank in the seniority below the AE/Trainee as on the date.

14. In terms of B.P.Ms.No. 354, the unofficial respondents have to be promoted only after completion of four years of service in the category of Sub-Engineer and they are not entitled to any service weightage and shall be considered for appointment by transfer as AE only after December 2004/January 2005 from the date of regularization as Sub- Engineer in December 2000/January 2001 and the training period of one year rendered before regularization shall not be considered.

15. Further, Annexure (IV), Part-III of APSEB Service Regulations clarifies that a direct-recruited Sub-Engineer shall be on training for a period of one year and they will be paid stipend and the period of training shall not be considered for probation and increment. From the above also, respondents, who had undergone training in Sub-Engineer cadre from 24 1999/2000 to 2000/2001, shall not be considered for probation also. But the respondent company has taken the period rendered during training as qualified service of 4-years without modifying the APSEB Service Regulations and affected promotion as AE much earlier to the date of regularization of petitioners. This has caused seniority dispute in AE cadre, by which subsequent promotions like DE, SE and CE shall be affected to both the parties.

16. Further, promotion orders to the unofficial respondents dated 21.04.2004 and 29.04.2004 as AEs, were also on temporary basis under Regulation 14 of APSEB Service Regulations, which were purely temporary and do not confer any right for regular appointment as AE (clause-c) and liable for termination at any time without notice (clause-d). Petitioners were never shown as juniors to unofficial respondents in the respondent company i.e NPDCL in any of the AE's seniority list(s) issued prior to 02/2017. APNPDCL issued its provisional seniority list on 04.01.2008 with the names of petitioners and unofficial respondents duly calling for objections within 15 days time and finalized the list vide memo dated 08.05.2009 with 114 candidates as below, wherein petitioners (2002 DR AEs) were shown between Sl.Nos.3 to 72; petitioner's junior batch (2003 25 DR AEs.) from Sl.Nos. 74-98 and unofficial respondents from Sl.No. 99 to 110.

17. After quashing T.O.O 231 by the Judgment in January 2017 in Writ Appeal No. 1151 of 2011, the said final list was revised and finalized by order dated 24.04.2017 with the following seniority.

i) Unofficial respondents were shown on top, from 3 to 14,

ii) Petitioners were shown from Sl.Nos.16-41 and

iii) 2003 direct AEs from Sl.Nos.55 to 70.

18. Petitioner's seniority was also indirectly protected by this Court vide judgment in Writ Petition No. 6811 of 2008, when the said relaxation was already challenged by their junior direct batch AEs. i.e 2003 DR AEs (which was not clubbed with contract-related court cases of Writ Appeal No. 1150 of 2011. Upon hearing, this Court made the following order in WP 6811/2009:

" Proceedings in N.O.O.(CGM-HRD) Ms.No.23 dated 21-04- 2004, by which respondents 2 to 13 were appointed by transfer as Assistant Engineers (Electrical), contain several conditions subject to which such appointment was made. Condition (b) reads as under

" They have to take the lowest rank below the Junior-most Assistant Engineer (Trainee) who have already been appointed as trainee AE as the date of N.Ο.Ο."

At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, to the query of the Court, submitted that respondent No.1 has not passed any order deleting, amending or in any way modifying the above-mentioned condition.

So long as the condition reproduced above remains in force, the seniority of the petitioners will not be affected. While the petitioners have not indicated the nature of "relaxation" granted in favour of respondents 2 to 13, at any rate, whatever may be the relaxation granted in favour of respondents 2 to 13, the same will not affect the interests of the petitioners in respect of their seniority qua respondents 2 to 13, so long as the above-mentioned condition is not touched by respondent No. 1."

Respondents in the above Writ Petition are petitioners herein and petitioners therein are juniors to present petitioners. On relying the judgment about seniority, petitioners did not file Writ Petition on the relaxation again, as petitioners are immediate juniors to the present petitioners. Further, the relaxation given to unofficial respondents was against the clarification given by APTRANSCO to all the DISCOMS vide Memo No. CGM(HRD&Trg)/DS(P)/AS(P)/PO-III.1/153/2003, dated 28.11.2003 that "there should not be any relaxation either in respect of education qualifications or number of years of service stipulated in the service regulations while considering for promotions, appointments in all categories of posts". In spite of the above clear instructions in November, 2003 itself, respondent company gave relaxation in length of service to unofficial respondents and affected promotion as AEs in 04/2004.

19. 2003 direct recruit AEs. have filed another Writ Petition No. 24690 of 2008 challenging commencement of probation orders of present respondents on Memo dated 23.01.2006 as illegal and contrary to the orders issued in B.P. Ms. No. 354 dated 12.12.1994 and consequently, set aside the same and the said Writ Petition is still pending. The counter- affidavit filed by NPDCL says that vacancies are regular in nature and not temporary during the period from 2002-2008. The information under the RTI Act was sought from APNPDCL on the nature of relaxation of respondents granted on their promotion orders and stated vide letters dated 03.12.2007, 14.02.2008 and 22.05.2008 that i) the above appointment (promotion as AEs, called as appointment by transfer) were given in 2004 against the recruitment of 55 Assistant Engineers during November and December 2003; ii) Relaxation was given to 13 Graduate Sub-Engineers converted as Assistant Engineers in 2004; iii) training period of Sub-Engineers was considered for the purpose of computation of qualifying service for appointment by transfer as AEs. From the above information, it is very clear that unofficial respondents had completed three years of service only as on 24.04.2004, excluding the one year training period.

20. It is appropriate to note that there is much difference between consideration and relaxation. The Management had given consideration to count the service rendered in contract period to petitioners by giving TOO 231 by considering Regulation 3(d), which exists in APSEB Service Regulations towards seniority purpose, but the same was quashed later. Whereas the Management had given relaxation to unofficial respondents to count the service rendered in training period as qualifying service without issuing any T.O.O, wherein Regulation (4) itself does not support to consider the training period and other purposes. Hence their promotion orders as AEs are liable for termination.

21. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that impugned proceedings (i) N.O.O.(CGM-HRD) Ms.No.23, dated 21.04.2004, (ii) N.O.O.(CGM-HRD) Ms.No.31 dated 29.04.2004 and (iii) N.O.O.(CGM-HRD) Ms.No.361, dated 03.02.2009 are illegal and contrary to the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 1104 of 2011 and are against the APSEB Service Regulations, Clarifications by APTRANSCO, hence, are liable to be quashed/modified from the date of getting eligibility i.e after 27.12.2004. The above impugned proceedings are accordingly, set aside. Consequently, the seniority of petitioners (as given in NPDCL original seniority list dated 08.05.2009) is restored 29 since the date of regularization of petitioners was on 01.10.2004 and 01.12.2004 i.e prior to unofficial respondents' promotion as AEs.

22. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

23. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.

-------------------------------------

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 15th October 2025 ksld 30

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Telangana High Court