SRI M v. RAMA RAO The Court made the following

8. Sri P.Srinivas, s/o Mallaiah, aged about 41 years Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation/Bellampally oio Divisional Engineer/Operation/Sirpur Kagaznagar.

9. P.Srinivas, s/o Rama Swamy, aged about 42 years Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation/Jammikunta, 0/o Divisional Engineer/Operation/Huzurabad

10.Sri D.Naga Brahma Chary, s/o Kotaiah Chary, aged about 40 years Assistant Divisional Engineer/GHMC, o/o EE (Electrical), North zonelSecundrabad 11. Sri 8-Danaiah, s/o Ramaswamy, aged about 43 years Assistant Divisional Engineer/ConstructionAlVarangal, o/o Divisional EngineeriConstructionlVVarangal

12. D.Naga Raju, s/o Buchaiah, aged about 40 years Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation/Nekkonda o/o Divisional Engineer/Operation/Narsampet 13. Sri K.Srinivas Reddy, s/o K. Tirupati Reddy, aged about 37 years, Assistant Divisional Engineer /Comml/Karimnagar, o/o Superintending Engineer/ Operation, Karimnagar. 14,Sri E.Satyan arayana, s/o Late Janardhan, aged about 42 yea$, Assistant Divisional Engineer /Operation/Husnabad, o/o Divisional Engineer/Operation/Husnabad, Karimnagar District.

15.Sri M.Kishore Kumar, sio Madhava Rao, age_d about 40 years, Assistant Divisional Engineer /Projects-1/Corporate Office o/o CGM(Projects)/TSNPDCL, Warangal District.

16.Sri Y.Ramesh Kumar, s/o Subhash Chandra Bose, aged about 39 years, Assistgnt Divisional Engineer/ SPM/Khammam o/o Divisional Engineer/ i. Transformers/Khammam j' ...RES'.NDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders daled 12-10-2017 Passed in W.P. No. 31999i2017 76nd dismiss this writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI D. PRAKASH REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. D. MADHAVI Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI G. VIDYASAGAR, S,ENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. K UDAYA SF.I Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 to '15: SRI M. V. RAMA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER ) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 31999 OF zOLz ORDER: Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the action of the 1 st Respondent - Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (NPDCL) in placing Petitioners below the unofficial Respondents 3 to 15 in the final seniorirrr list in the category of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), dated 27.O4.2O17 as it is ittegal, arbitrary and contrary to APSEB Service Regulations.

2. The case of petitioners is that, they possess B.E. (Elcctric:rl) degrees, applied for the post of Assistant Engineer in rcsponse to Notification dated 02.11.2OO1 issued by AP TRANSCO. Following a written examination and interview process, appointments were made on a.yearly contract basis through proceedings dated O2.O9.2002. The rank and allotment spccifics have been detailed, highlighting, among others, petitioners' ailocation 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 Ol.l2.2OO4 uide proceedings dated 23.12.2OO4 under Regulation 1a(a)(1) of APSEB Service Regulations Part-ll as .\. \ l 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 zrppointed as Trainee Sub-Enginer:rs through proceedings dated 21.12.1999, joining in December 1999 and .Jaluary 2O00. After completing one-year training by January 2001 ancl obtaining B.E./B.Tech qualihcation, these respondents were promoted to Assistant Engineer (Electrical) posts bv transfer, as per Northern Olfice Orders dated

21.O4.2OO4,29.O4.2OO4 and 13.06.20O5. Here, it is the case of petitioners, recruitment to Assistant Engineer posts occurs ura direct recruitment and by transfer from Graduate Sub- Engineers. For recruitment by transfer, candidat,e must have four years of service as a Sub-Engineer or equivalent. This route is limitecl to loyo of recruitment events, with transferees to be ranked belor.r' the junior-most Assistant Engineer/'lrainee 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 initialll' considered junior to petitioners. This arrangement appeared in the provisional seniority list prepared on J I

04.01.2008, where directly recruited ABs 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 20O3 direct recruitment were at 99 to 111, as per B.P.Ms.No.354 dated 12.12.1994. Subsequently, APIRANSCO issued T.O.O. (Addl. Secy.Per) Ms. 231 dated 23.12.2OO8, 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 O4.O1.2O08 provisional seniority list was conl-rrmed on O8.05.2009, maintaining the same positions even after objections, which were dismissed based on BP.Ms.No:354-

2.3. Aggrieved, some Assistant Engineers appointed by transler challenged the list and T.O.O.No.231 dated 23.12.2OO8 by Iiling Writ Petitions No. 958, 1150 and 1151 of 2OO9. 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 l I i circumstances. Writ Appeals No. I 150 and 1151 of 2011 and batch filed by the unoflicial respondents were allrwed setting aside the earlier order and quashing T.O.O.No.231 dated

23.12.2OO8. Review and SLP (C) Nos. 13858-13859 ,rf 2O15 were also dismissed on 23.O1.2017.

2.4. Following quashing of T.O.O.No. 231, dated

23.12.2008, the l.t Respondent, adhering to the Ilon'ble Apex Court order dated 23.O1.2017, preparcd a provisional seniority list dated 13.02.2017, wherein unofficial Respondr:nts 3 to 15 were elevated to ranks 2 to 14 while the 2OO2 direct recruits were placed at 16 to 41, and 2OO3 dircct 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 seniorit5r 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 uncler the Right to lnformation Act regarding transfers, details issued by the General Manager (Ser.) in proceedings dated O3.72.2OO7,

14.O2.2OO8, and 22.O5.2OO8 recorded that training period for Sub-Engineers had been counted towards qualifying service for appointment by transfer and that the unofhcial respondents received a relaxation in 2OO4. CGM-HRD, Warangal, conhrmed /./ / I l the unofhcial 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. Petitionets maintain that their seniorit5r as 2OO2 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 communicatcd on 15.04.2006 indicated that seniority of AEs appointed by transfer from Sub-Engineers with graduate qualification u,ould be finalized alongside directly recruited AEs of 2OO3 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 I I /2OO3 direct recruits, after completing two years contract, were to be placed on regular scale just as petitioners had been regularized in lO/2OO4 and 12l2OO4.

2.6. Direct recruits of 1l /2OO3 made documented representations on 29.07.20O8 and 20. 10.2OO8 to cancel or I ''l 6 modify probation and regularization orders related to Respondents 3 to i5 and ltnally firled Writ Petition No. 6811 of 2009 to contest alleged arbitrary appointments by transfer under N.O.O.(CGM-HRD)Ms.No.23 dated 21.O1.2OO4 and N.O.O.(CGM-HRD)Ms.No.31 dated 29.O4.2OO4.'lhis Court, while hearing their plea, maintained protection lor petitioners' seniority, clarifying that appointment by transler incumbents would take the lowest rank beneath existing train,:es as of the relevant N.O.0. The department's rejection of objections made in 2O08 by respondent AEs stated unambiguously that, in compliance with the rules, transferee AEs placed below 2O03 direct recruits could not be placed above the 2OO2 direct recruits. Based on these events and procerJural steps, petitioners assert that departmental procedures, orders and APSEB Service Regulations had consistently protected their senioriqr; therefore, no cause previously arose to < l-rallenge the transfer appointments of respondents. However, due to the Supreme Court ruling, they are now positionecl as juniors to Respondents 3 to 15, prompting the present writ petition and explaining the delay in its filing.

2.7. St:rvices in this context are classified as Engineering, Personal, and General, with both th,: petitioners ,/ 1 1 and unofficial respondents falling under Engineering Service as defined in Annexure-l to Part-lll of the Regulations. Appointment was, until 1994, solely by direct recruitment, but the 1994 amendment permitted up to 1O7" 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 20O3 vacancies, always ranked below the petitioners until 24.O4.2O 17 seniority list. For the hrst time, this list reversed earlier positioning, which pctitioners assert as illegal and contrary to the service regulations.

2.a. Petitioners refer to Part III, Annexure IV, which states that for Branch VI, direct recruits shail 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 2O00 and January 20O1; thus, only after December 2OO4 and January 2005 would they be eligible for promotion under the four-year qualifying calculation. In contradiction to E \ these terms, the unofficial respondents were promoted/appointed to Assistant Engineer prrsitions on \

21.O4.2OO4 and 24.04.2004 with relaxation not allrr,r'e<l by the Regulations, making such appointments illegal.

2.9. Further, memo dated 28. 11.2003 by APTRANSCO strictly prohibited any relaxation regarding r:ducational qualification or years of service, expressly reiteratin5l that Sub- Engineer training shall not be counted for pr,rmotion or increments. This direction corroborates petitioners' contention that, if the training period is excluded, responder ts 3 to 15 lacked the mandatory four years' service for appointment by transfer in 2OO4. Consequently, such appointments are alleged to be illegal and in violation of regulations. Qualifying scrvice, as required by Regulations, was not met by Respondents 3 to 15, rendering their appointments by transfer to AssistarLt Engineer both illegal and voidable. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. By order dated 1,2.10.2077, in view of the submission made on behalf of petitioners that in similar circumstances, interim suspension of same impugneC seniority list was grantcd in Writ Petition No. 199O8 of 2017 on

25.06.2017, even in this Writ Petition, it was direcred rhat there should be interim suspension as prayed for three u.eel.:s. r/ 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 1O7o 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, vacancl extent of 7Oo/o for transfers is to be effected accordingly. APSDB's unbundling into APIRANSCO 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-O|-2OOI as per TOO Ms. No. 251 dated 29-O|-2OO1 and it was decided to recruit the employees on contract basis. As per the said decision, from 2OO2 to 2OO7, employees including petitioners were recruited on contract basis against regular vacancies and regularized after trvo years, with due reservation rules. However, APIRANSCO did not consider Graduate Sub-Engineers for transfer appointment against 2002 vacancies under BP Ms. No. 354 due to unavailability. In 2OO3, 55 Assistant Engineers were recruited and regularized in 2OO6; unofiicial respondents (except thc sth respondent) were translerred and posted as in-charge Assistant Engineers as no l0 eligible Graduate Sub-Engineers were available. Ex(rept the 13d' .l respondent, unofficial respondents were. appointecl as Trainee Sub-Engineers in December 1999 /January 2000 and regularized in December 2OOO I January 2OOl , the l3th respondent was trainee from 23-12-1998 and regulrtr from 23- 12-1999. TOO 251 dated 29-01-20O1 provided that training period counts for probation, increment, leave, and pension. Considerirrg the absence of Graduate Sub-Engineers with four years' servicr: (except 13s respondent), relaxation u'as granted to includt' training period as qualifying service fc,r unofllcial respondents' transfer appointments as Assistant Engineers; these appointments were effected under N.O.O (CGIt,l-HRD) Ms. Nos. 23 and 31 dated 2l-04-2004 and 29-O4-2OO4, 'rrith thc 5d, respondent appointed by transfer uide N.O.O Ms. N,r. 68 datecl 13-06-2005 and notionally with effect from 01-06-2004 as per N.O.O Ms. No. 361 dated 03-02-2OO9.

4.1 . The affidavit references the provisional sr:niorit_v" list dated 15-04-2006 issued without inclusion of petitioners and 2OO2 recruits. Chalienging the same, Writ Petition No. 904 I of 20O6 was filr:d wherein stay of promotions till finalizing final seniority list trfter objections was ordered. As per BP Ms. No. 354, transfers lrom Graduate Sub-Engineers are limir.ed to lOol, 1l I vacancies, with appointees taking lowest rank below junior most trainees. Since training system was dispensed with from 29-O1-2OO|, contract recruitment was followed. The provisional seniority list of 04-01-2008 placed unofficial respondents below 2OO2 and,2OO3 contract recruitee regularized in 2OO4 and 2006, respecting BP Ms. No. 354 principles. TOO 231 dated 23-12-2OOa and NOO (CGM-HRD) Ms. No. 31 1 dated 24-12-2OOa counted contract service for seniority but faced interim stay by this Court. Clarification Memo dated 23-09-2OO9 included Assistant Engineer (Contract) under trainee categories. Objections by unoflicial respondents to their provisional seniority were rejected per Memo dated 08-05-2OO9, affirming seniorit5r placements as per BP Ms. No. 354, placing unnamed twelve transferred Assistant Engineers between Sl. Nos. 99 and 11O, and that conditions for promotion and seniority for converted Additional Assistant Engineers dilfer as per BP Ms. No. 596 dated 06-06-1-978 with 5O"/o service weightage. Regularization and probation commencement orders dated 23-O 1-2006 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 \ l conditions. Notionally, Sri Ch. Satyanarayana's seniority is hxed .] below Sri V. Sateesh Kumar as per adrninistrativ,: delays. The final seniority list dated O8-O5-2OO9 placcd unofficial respondents below directly-recruited petitioners, subject to review pending court outcomes on NOO 311. The Sth respondent was positioned at Sl. No. 1O2 by virtue of notional appointment as per N.O.(). (CGM-HRD) Ms. No. 361 dated O3-O2-2OO9. Promotions to Assistant Divisional Engineers occurred on hnalized seniority and petitions chailenging lists were dismissed by this Court, with Division Bench quashing T{)O 231 and ruling seniorit'"' reckoned only from regularization date. Review petitions and SLPs were dismissed and NOO 31 I and related orders were rescinded by successive NOO Ms. Nos- 14, 15, and 29 dated 24-01-2014, 25-Ol-2O14, and |O-O2-2O17 respectivclv.

4.2. ["ollowing this, a revised provisional st:niority list as of 31-O5-2O10 was issued by Memo No. CMD/CGM(HRD) dated l3-O2-2O17 placing unofficial respondents above 2OO2 and 2OO3 direct recruits aligning with Writ Appeal No. 11O4 of 2O I I common .ludgment dated 17-O9-2013, and petitioners filed objections. These were rejected vide Memo dated 24-04-2017 and final seniority list confirmed on 2T -O4-2O17 . 1 I l.l Petitioners' assertion that Graduate Sub-Engineers were considered for transfer appointments against 2OO2 direct recruitments per BP Ms. No. 354 is denied for non-availability of eligible candidates (except the 13ft respondent). The Board extended relaxation of one-year service for counting training locally as one-time concession for unofficial respondents appointed in 2OO4 transfers, subject to lowest rank placement below junior trainees. Probation orders dated 23-0 1-20O6 clarif_y seniority list integration later. The Board relies on Regulation 41 (relaxation power) and Regulation 4 (interpretation) ot APSEB Service Regulations, binding all.

4.3. It is stated, despite unof{icial respondents' appointment by transfer wblle 2OO2 and 2OO3 direct recruits worked on contract, unofficial respondents were placed below contract recruits in the provisional seniorit5r list dated O4-0 l- 2008 as per BP Ms. No. 354 spirit. Objections opposing lhis list were rejected and final list issued on 08-O5-2OO9, with the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 6811 of 2OO9. Seniority reckoning changed only after the common judgment dated 17-09-2013 in Writ Appeal No. llO4 /2Ol I and batch, thereafter placing unofficiai respondents above petitioners and other direct recrurts I I t+

4.4. Board's Regulation 41 relaxation .owers and TOO 251 dated 29 Ol-2OOl training period counting for probation, increment, leave, and pension are cited to justify the inclusion of training period for unofficial respondents' transfer appoint.ments. Petitioners' own contract servict: was regularized controversially, with Board granting relaxations. Allocation of posts and service regularizations used these principles, precluding petitioners from contesting relaxations granted to unofhcial respondents selectively. It is further stated, regulirrized unofhcial respondents' seniority was Iixed above petitioncrs post 2013 High Court ruling. Claim of any irregulzrrity 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 -O4- 2017 impedes promotions, causing operatjonal hardships. Respondents pray to vacate interim order dated l2-lO-2O17 arrd dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. The counter affidavit hled by Respondents 3, 4 and 6 to l5 asserts, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and issues alread.v sr:ttled by the Hon'ble High Court ancl Supreme Court ju{,;lrlerrts, and is barred by delay and laches, as the t5 appointments in question date back to 2l-o4-2oo4. It is statcd, except the 13tr' respondent, all were .appointed as Sub- Engineers by direct recruitment in l'g9g with diploma qualifications, with the 13e 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 uia Memo dated L2-11-2OO3 and regularly appointed by transfer per N.O.O (CGM-HRD) Ms. No. 23 dated 2|-O4-2OO4 with regular pay scales. Probation was declared compiete on 31-O5- 2OO5 vide Memo dated la-O6-2OO7. These respondents bring out the facts as was done by official respondents.

6. The additional counter affidavit hled by Respondents 8 to 1O and i I to 15 states that petitioners were granted relaxation from Service Regulations and exemptions from terms and conditions o[ the notification at the time of their appointment on a yearly contract basis, including granting them time scale of pay in 2OO4, regularization of service as Assistant Engineers vide Memo dated O8-1O-2OO8 with retrospective effect from 2OO4, and promotions as Assistalt Divisional Engineers. Various relaxations were also accorded for contract service counting towards leave, Automatic Advancement Scheme, and \\ ! { l6 service weightage increments, among others. Trerefore, the petitioners, having benefitted from several relauxations and having their services regularized after respondents' appointment/ promotion as Assistant Engineers, possess no right to challenge respondents' appointments or prcrnotions.

6.1. It is stated, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh issued the notification dated O2-11-2OOl on behalf of all power companies, including the first responden t, calling for applications lrom engineering graduates for 2tl tenporary Assistant Engineer (Electrical) posts in the first respondent company fcr r yearly contract basis. The respondent:;, except the 9& respondent, who were already working as regular Sub- Engineers, did not apply due to the temporary, contract nature of the posts. Thc gth respondent, though selected with appointment orcler dated 22-O4-2OO2, did not .join due to the one-year tenure limitation. Initially, only 24 selectecl candidates were appointed per the notiflcation on 22-O4-2OO2. Petitioners were not selected for these posts and were appointed subsequently in October and December 2OO4 in excess of the notified posts. with conditions stating they worrld not be regarded as service members nor entitled to preferontial rights for any other appointment. r/ .t/ 17

6.2. The assertion continues that petitioners and other contract Assistant Engineers were appointed as regular Assistant Engineers with time scale of pay from 0i-10-2004 and O1-12-2OO4 but subject to conditions that they be piaced 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 speci{'ic date; rather, their services were regularizcd only by rule relaxation. Based on that date, petitioners cannot challenge respondents' promotion as Assistant Engineers from 2|-O4-2OO4, especially given that, at the time of respondents' promotion, petitioners were only contract employees and only later, entbred 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 heid to have no right to challenge those promotions.

6.3. The affidavit disputes petitioners' contentions that they were seniors to 'respondents until the 2O I 1 Writ Appeal t\\ \ llJ No. 1 1O4 of 201 1 and batch orders and renamed seniority 1ist, stating that lrom December 2OO4 regulariz:rtion orders, petitioners knew they would be junior in seniority. [t references an annual appraisal report called on 15-05-2O05 by the Chief General Manager of the first respondent which showed respondents senior to contract Asst. Enginet:rs including petitioners, rvhose claim to seniority above respxrndents only surfacecl in 2009 following pressure through assc,r:iations; that seniority uras later set aside by this Court. The Sth respondent, similarly piaced in Writ Petition No. 958 of 21009 filed by respondents challenging seniority, had already ra.sed the issue of minimum service relaxation in their favour uia counter afhdavit ancl Writ Appeal. Petitioners cannot reopen these settled issues post issuance of the seniority list dated 27-04- 2O 17 based on appeal orders. Being aware of se:-riority-related cases from 2008 to 2O13 and having delayt:d contesting promotions rssued in 2OO4, petitioners are barr-r:d from now challenging these promotions after 13 years rrnd following adverse court and Supreme Court rulings. The u'rit petition is thus liable for dismissal on delav and laches.

6.4. The afhdavit further states that respondents were promoted as Assistant Engineers in the quota reserved for I9 Graduate Sub-Engineers because no eligible graduates completing four years' service existed during 2002 and 2O03. Similar relaxations were granted in 2OO2 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 uide N.O.O. Ms. No. 30l 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 O 1-05-2009 allowing counting of training periods for pension and other benehts. Petitioners are therefore precluded lrom selectively challenging the relaxations granted by the Board to respondents based solely on the fortuitous fact of their regularization on o1-t2-2004. 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 \ t. 1 I \ 20 Counsel on behalf of Smt. K. Udaya Sri, leartred 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 materiai on record, it is clear that there is seniority dispute of Assistant Engineers (A.lis.) between unofhciai respondents, who were initially appointed as Sub- Engineers in 12/1999 and Ol2OOl and petitioners, who are direct-recruited Assistant Engineers and initially appointed as contract AEs. in lO l2OO2 and regularised with effect from Ol.l2.2OO4 in NPDCL, Warangal.

10. Petitioners challenged the relaxation given by the respondent company to the unofficiai respondents without issuing any order in the form of NOO and computed the training period of one year held during the Sub-trnginr't-r cadre, as qualihed service and effected promotion as AEs. to 13 candidates in 04 /2OO4, 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 anyrvhere in the order(s) in the earlie r court cases filed by the parties to this Writ Petition on t.1e matter of considering the contract service as seniority purpose to petitioners b1 T.O.O 231, dated 23.12.2OOa (NOO :l1 1), wherein the unofficial respondents initially hled Writ Petition No.1563 of 2OO8 challenging TOO-23 l/NOO-311 and they did not get any relief; then they Frled Writ Appeals No. 1t50 and 1151 of 2011 and succeeded.

11. Then, petitioners filed Review W.A.M.P. (SR).No. 2ol4a2 of 2O13 in Writ Appeals and SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court and finally, the Court set aside T.O.O 23 1, dated

23.12.2OO4 in Jan-2O17, consequently, petitioner's seniority during the contract period of two years of service was lost from 2OO2 to 20O4 and considered their service from the date of regularization i.e. 01. 1O.2OO4 and O1. 12.2OO4. Subsequently, after the judgment in 2017, the present Writ Petition was hled challenging the relaxation given to the unofficial respondents on considering their ad hocf temporary period of training period rendered during Sub-Engineer cadre on the same grounds of judgment in Writ Appeal No. 1151 oif 2Oll. 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 I l2 on regular basis only, then he is entitled to all the benefits flo\a.ing there from".

12. Applying the above principle, petition,lrs state that once the employee is borne in the cadre on regular basis, then only he is entitled to all the benehts flowing the re from. The orders ol respondent company to the unofficial respondents as Sub-Engineers clearly indicated that, they were appointed on temporary basis r,ride memo dated 2l .12.1999 and they r,r,ere also informed in the same order itself that their appointmcnt as Sub-Engineer now ordered is purely undcr 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 /2OOO to 2OOO /2OOI shall not be considered and beneht will flow from the date of regularisation in Sub-Engineer cadre ie. l2l2OOO to Ol/2001 and they become eligible for the next promotion as Assistant Engineer in terms ol B.P'l\ls' No' 354, dated 12. 12.l9g4 only after completion of four years of service'

13. It is to be noted, prior to 1994, erstyhile 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 E;ngiy/'ring, APSEB amended the service rcgr..: Iation uide 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 107. of the vacancies at the time of each recruitment. b) They are not entitled for any service rveightage- c) They have to take lowest rank in the senioritl belou'the AE/Trainee as on the date.

14. In terms of B.P.Ms.No. 354, the unofficiai respondents have to be promoted only after completion ol 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 2OO4 /January 2005 from the date of regularization as Sub- Engineer in December 2ooo/January 20O I and the training period of one year rendered before regularizatron shall not be considered.

15. Further, Annexure (lV), Part-lll of APSEB Service Regulations clarifies that a direct- recruited Sub-Engineer shall be on training for a period of onc 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 tll Sub Engineer cadre lrom l.l \ 1999 I2OOO to 2O0O/2O01, shall not be considered frrr probation also. But t.he respondent company has taken the period rendcred cluring training as qualified service of 4 yt:ars ',vithout modifying thr; APSEB Service Regulations ar":d affected promotion as AE much earlier to the date of regularization of petitioners. Ttris has caused seniority dispute in hE cadre, b-y '*'hich subsequent promotions like DE, SE and CE shall be affected to |:oth the parties.

16. Further, promotion orders to the unofficial respondents dated 21.O4.2OO4 and 29.O4.2OO4 a.s AEs, were also on tc'mporary basis under Regulation 14 of APSEB Service Regulations, which were purely temporary and co not confer any right for regular appointment as AE (clause-c) and liable for terminat ion at any time without notice (clause-cl). Petitioners were never shown as juniors to unofficial respondents in the respondent company i.e NPDCL in any of the l\E's seniority Iist(s) issued prior to 0212017. APNPDCL issued .ts provisional senioritv list on 04.01.2O08 with the names of petitioners and unolficial respondents duly calling for objections within 15 days time and finalized the list uide memo dated 08.O5.:2O09 with 1 14 candidates zrs below, wherein petitioners (2002 DR AEs) were shown betwcen Sl.Nos.3 to 72; petitioner's junior batch (2O03 25 DR AEs.) from Sl.Nos. 74-98 and unofficial respondents from Sl.No.99 to 1lO. '17 . After quashing T.O.O 23 I by the Judgment in January 2017 ir Writ Appeal No. 1151 of 2O11, the said final list was revised and finalized by order dated 24.04.2017 with the following seniority. i) UnoIficial respondents were shown on top, from 3 to 14, ii) Petitioners were shown from Sl.Nos. 16-41 and iii) 2003 direct AEs from SI.Nos.55 to 7O. 18. Petitioner's seniority was also indirectly protected by this Court uide judgment in Writ Petition No. 6811 of 2008, when the said relaxation was already challenged by their junior direct batch AEs. i.e 2OO3 DR AEs (which was not clubbed with contract-related court cases of Writ Appeal No. I 15O of 20 I I . Upon hearing, this Court made the following order in WP 6att /2oo9: " Pr'oceedings in N.O.O.(CGM-HRD) Ms.No.23 dated 2l-O4- 2OO4, 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.O.O." At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, to the query of the Court, submitted that respondent No. I has not passed any prder deleting, amending or in any way modifying the above,mentioned c\pdition. I ( )6 \' So long as the condition reproduced above rerrains in force, the serrrority of the petitioners will not be affected. While lhe petitioners have not i,r<licated the nature of "relaxati6Yr" granted in favour of respon(lcnls 2 to 13, at any rate, whatever may be tlte relaxation in favour of respondents 2 to 13, the same will lrot affect the €lranted 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 responrlent No- 1." Responclcnts in the above Writ Petition are petilioners herein and pctitioncrs thcrcin are juniors to present petitioners. On relying thc judgmcnt about seniority, petitioners dicl not file Writ Petition on the relaxation again, as petitioners a.re immediate juniors to the present petitioners. Further, the relaxation given to unoffici:rl respondents was against t]re clarification given by APTRANSOO to all CGM(HRD&rrg)/ DS(P)/AS(P)/Po-III. | / rs3l2oo3, the DISCOMS uide Memo No.

28.11.200:1, that "there should not be any relaxation either in respect of cducation qualifications or number of yr:ars of service stipulated in the service regulations while considering for promotions, appointments in all categories of posts". In spite of the abov(i clear instructions in November, 2OO3 itself, respondr:n t company gave relaxation in length of service to unofficial respondents and affected promotion as AEs in 04 /2OO.+ )7

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 frorn 2OO2-2OO8. Thc information under the RTI Act was sought from APNPDCL on the nature of relaxation of respondents granted on their promotion orders and stated urde letters dated O3.|2.2OOT ,

14.O2.2OO8 and 22.O5.2OO8 that i) the above appointment (promotion as AEs, called as appointment by transfer) were given in 2OO4 against the recruitment of 55 Assistant Engineers during November and December 2OO3; ii) Relaxation was given to 13 Graduate Sub-Engineers converted bs Assistant trngineers in 2OO4; iii) training period of Sub-trngineers was considered for the purpose of computation of qualifying service for appointment by transfer as AEs. From information, it is very clear that unofficial responde nts had completed three years of service only as on 24.O4.2OO4, excluding the one year ttaining period. \. t8 r ..(

20. tt is appropriate to note ttrat there is much difference between consideration and relaxation. 'The Manage ment had given consideration to count the service rendered in contract period to petitioners by giving TOO 23 1 by considering Regulation 3(d), which exists jn APSEB Service Regulations towards seniority purpose, br-rt the same was quashecl later. Whereas the Management had given relaxation to \ unofficizrl respondents to count the service re ndered in training period as qualifying service without issuing any T.O.O, wherein Regulation (a) itself does not support to consider the training perioci and othcr purposes. Hence their promot-ron orders as AEs are lia blc [rrr termination. 2l . In vicw of the above, this Court is of the opinion that impugned proceedings (i) N.O.O.(CGM-HRD) Ms.No.23, datecl 21 .O4.2OO4, (ii) N.O.O.(CGM-HRD) ,Ms.No.31 dated

29.O4-2OO4 and (iii) N.O.O.(CGM-HRD) Mr;.No.361, dated O3.O2.2OOT are itlegal and contrary to the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 1lO4 of 2011 and are against the APSEB Service Regulatrons, Clarihcations by APTRANSCO, henc:e, are liable to be quashecl/ modified from the date of getting eligibility i.e after

27.12.2OO4. The above impugned proceedings are accordingly, set agide Consequently, the seniorit5r of petitionr:rs (as given in NPDCL original seniority list dated 08.05.2009) is restored l9 since the date of regularization of petitioners was on 01.lO.2OO4 and 01. 12.2004 i.e prior to unofficial respondents, promotion as AEs

22. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any

23. shall stand closed' 6al- r. po*ua xntsn A SISTANT R //TRUE COPY// \ To, 1 The Chairman and Mana of Telangana Ltd., H.No. Hanamkonda 506 004 Warangal District ging D 2-8-31 irector, Northern P i2, Vidyuth Bhavan Nak

2. The General Manager (Services), Northern Power Distribution Company of SECTION OFFICER Distribution Company kalagutta, Telangana Limited, Corporate Office H.No.2-8-3112, Vidyuth Bhavan, Nakkalagutta Hanamkonda 506 004, Warangal District One CC to Smt. D Madhavi Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Smt. K Udaya Sri Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri M. V. Rama Rao, Advocate (OPUC) Two CD Copies

3. 4. 5. 6 MBC h,v,, HIGH CO uR-r NBK,J DATE D: 1511012025 Y * (. -[FtES 1 / liT 7025 Y 2 ..a: -,".". '.,:.. :-r'- ORDER WP.No.lll999 of 2017 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITI-IOUT COSTS l0T ?^ \