1. Telangana State Southern Power Drstribution Complny^Limited (TSSPDp v. Ch. Kondal Reddy

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI G. VIDYA SAGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENiING SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY, S.C. FOR TSSPDCI- Gounsel for the Respondents: Ms. B. RACHNA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Mr. MOHD BASEER RIYAZ The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLI' THE CHIE,F JUSIICE SRI APARESH KT]M AR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIITDD) N UIRIT APPEAL No.929 of 2o25 JUDGMENT: Hearcl Sri G-Vidi'a Sagar, learned Senir'r Counsel appearing for Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Transrn jss iotr Corporation of Telangana Limi'.cd for thc appellants; N/ s. B.Rachna Reddy, learned Seni,rr Counscl a ppe:rring frrr S ri Md . Baseer Riyaz, Icarned cour sel for the respondent :rncl perused the record.

2. Thc [,resent u,rit appeal is hled by tl-re appellants / res,pondents against the order dated 28.05.2O25 passed by tlrc loarned Single Judge in W.P.No.l4z 22 of 2Ol7 along with other analogous writ pctitions i.e. W.P. \os.6736 ol 2Ol7 and tJ/ l' No.92 1O of 2019, whereby the s;ubject writ peti tion r,r,ar; allowed with a direction to the appeilants to appoint the r,:spondent as Junior Lineman or in itny suitablc other post viith retrospective effect and all consequential benefits. Factual Matrix The respondent/writ petitioner, a contra lt labourer, sought absorplion under B.P. Ms. No.36 dated 18.O5.1997, 2 which provided for Iilling up 50% of existing vacancies in initial recruitment cadres from among ex-casual labour, contract labour, and Village trlectricity Workers. His claim was considered and rejected on multiple occasions on 05.O5.2OOO,

06.08-2001 and 17 .O2.2Oi6 on the ground that at.l vacancics under the scheme had been filled and his turn had not ariscn. The policy itself u,as subsequently withdrawn with retrospcctive effect from 15.09.2006.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 iii) The policy was validly withdrawn in 2OO6 and no right to appointment survived thereafter. iv) The appointment of Sri P. Rajaiah and others was made under specihc Court orders and corporate instructions :=7 J arld in differellt f'actual and legal contexts, and can'lot be used to claim paritl . v) Tht: rcspondct'rt's service certificates werr: unreliable and did not sa I isf-v the critcria under the policy- vi) Thr: :cspondent's persistent litigation amottnted to zln abuse of the prot;e ss of lau'. Subrnissions on behalf of the respondent

5. Learn,:i Scnior Counsel Ms. B.Rachna Reddy appearing for the rcspondcnt contcnded that: i) 'lhe lespondent had rendcred continuous service and wzrs e[gible fcr absorption. ii) Sirnilarly situated persons were appointcl even after the withdra',vzrl of thc policY. iii) The appeliants acted in a discriminatory z.nd arbitrary manner violat ing Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitul ion. iv) Thre rcspondcnt's representations ought 1o have been considered in light of the appointments made .n favour of others.

6. We have taken note of the respective contenti lns urged. 4 Analysis and reaso ning

7. After careful consideration of the submissions and perusal of the record, we are of the considered opinion that the Iearred Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition. Our rcason s are as follows: a) Finali[. of Administrative and Judicial Decisions The respondcnt's claim was rejected by speaking orders issucd in 2000, 2001, and 2O16. These orders were nevcr challenged and attained hnalit5r. The principle of hnality in adminisLrative and quasi-judicial decisions is well-established. Thc respondent cannot be permitted to re agitate the same issue repeatedly, especially when the eariier decisions wcre rendered in compliance with court orders and aftcr due application of mind. b) trxhaustion of Vacancies B.P. Ms. No.36 provided for absorption only against SOoh of the vacancies existing as on 18.05. 1997. The appellants have categorically stated that all such vacancies were hlled based on seniority and man days worked, and the respondent's turn did nol arise. The respondent has not produced any material to rebut this assertion. In the absence of proof of available vacancies, no direction for appointment can be issued. f c) Withdr:*val of the PolicY The policl- B.P.Ms. No. 36 was withdrawn uide C O'O' (CGM-HRD) Ir4s. No. 470 dated 15-i12006 wet 15.O920O6' The witl'rdrrel,'al of an adrninistrative scheme is within the cxecutive's r1t,main, and no vested right accrt.lcs to a candidate unless apprti;tted. The respondent's c1aim, cven il any, stood extinguishe,l wtth the u'ithdran'al of the policy' d) Distinction in Appointments of Others The eLppointments of Sri Rajaiah and otherr; were made pursuant to l;pecific directions of this Court in individual cases, and not urder lhe gcner:rl schemc ol B P' Ms No'36 Such appointmerlts; do not crcale a right in favour of tht respondent' The principle ol cquali[' under Article 14 cannot lre invoked to perpetuate illegality or to claim appointment corrtrary to the terms of thc policy. The Hon'ble Supremc Court in lJnion of India o' Kartick Chandra Mo'nd.all, has held as under:

25. L)uen assuming that the sinilarlg placed persons tuete ordered to be ab.so,bed, the so.nle if done enoneouslA cannot become tlrc fourulation fot perpetu(ttitlg Jurther illegality. If an appo'ntment is nade illegc4lg or iregularlg, the sanrc cqnnot be the bqsls of further oppointn,,et Lt. An er roneous de-cision cannot be perritted. to perpetuctte futTlLer eror to the detiment of the general telfare of I (2010) 2 SCC 12Ll 6 the pubhc or a c<trtsiderable section. ?his hos beett the consistenl approQch of this Court. Houeuer, ue intend to rekr to a latest decision of this Court on this point in Stote of Bihar u. Upendro Naragan Singh [(2009) 5 SCC 65 : (2009) 1 SCC (t&Si 1019] , the releuant portion of uhich is exlracted hereinbelow: (SCC p. 102, para 67) '67. Br7 n"out it is settled that the guarantee of equaLitg beJbre lato etshined in Artrcle 14 ts a positiue concept ottd it cafi|ol be enforced bg a citizen or coud in o negatiue rnannet If on illegaLitg or inegularitg ho.s been conlntitted in lauour of ang indiuidual or a group of indiuiductls or o Lurong order hos been passed bg a judrcictl fontnt, otters canrtot irtuoke the juisdiction of the higher or supeior court Jor repeating or multiplging the. scllrte iteguLaity or tlLegalitg or for passing urong order- --." e) Reliability of Service Certificates The respondent's service certificates were issued by contractors and not sufficiently corroborated by muster rolls or other authentic records. The policy required continuous service under licensed conLractors, and the respondent failed to establish his eligibility with certainty. f) Abuse of Process of Law The respondent has been litigating since 1999 on the sarne cause of action. Multiple writ petitions and representations on thc same issue, after hnal decisions, amount to an abuse of the process of law. The courts cannot encourage such perslstent litigation which strains judicial resources and causes unnecessary harassment to the administration. t' 1 The Ape>r Court in K.K. Modi a. K.N. Modi2, has held as uncler

44. One oJ tl'Le e,\:o.tltples cited es ctn ctbuse of tlte proc:ss of the coufl $ .eiltigatio[. 1l is an abuse oJ tlte process of the court arrd. controry t(' justlce and publ.ic policq Jor Q P(utl1 to reL tigate the same is.sue ul'rcLL hc.s olready been tried uld decided earLier aga tst lti,tt. ' Le reogitation nLelJ or ntalJ ot be.ban:c1 cts res judicate. Etltt if tlle same issue LS sollght to be reogiot )d, it atso amounts tc en. ebuse of the process of the, court. A proceeTing being fled for a colLateral purpose, or a spunous cLaim beiut made in litigotion n aA also in a gtuen set of lacts anLount to an aluse of the process of the cour1. Fiuolous or ue-xatious proceed tgs rttag olso amoutLt ro an abuse of the process ofthe coutl especrallg uthere the proceedi,tgs are absoluteLg groundless. The court tllett hrrs tlre power ta sfo/, suc/l proceedings sutnntailg antd preuent ihe time of the public otld tlle courl fronl beiry Ltested. Urrdoubtect.ly, it is a mcltter o)F t:te coutl's discretion uhetlter such proceediLgs shottld be stopped o" not; and this discretiotr h..r.s to be exerrised urlh circumsl,e( tion. It is a lunsdictlon uhtch sltould be spaingtA exerctsed, ond exerased ott|l4 in special. cases. ?he cotl slt<tuld also be s,ctlisfe-d thctt there rs no clruntce of tlrc suit succeeTing.

8. In view of the foregoing reasons, we hold tha the learned Single Judgt: erred in directing the appointnrent of the respondent fcrthwith as junior lineman or in any other suitable post with rer.rospective effect and consequential benefit. The impugned cr(ler is unsustainable in la\. and on fa:ts. The u'rit pctition ough, to have been dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 28.05.2025 in W.P. No.14422 of 2017. There shall be no order as to costs (1998) 3 SCC 573 I I I I I I : 8 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR 6- SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J One CC to SRI N, SREEDHAR REDDY, S.C for TSSPDCL [OPUC] One CC to SRI IvIOHD BASEER RIYAZ, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies IVP BS W I ! I I I i I HIGH COURT DATED:1910912025 .;: ''.\ 25 ofi p5 .r ii, :-::::: JUDGMENT WA.trlo.929 of 2025 ALLOWING THE VI/RIT APPEAL WITI{OUT COSTS L) ,l> >\^