This Common Order dismisses review petitions filed by Assistant Engineers appointed in 10% vacancies for transfer. The Court held contract appointees lack seniority rights dating to their initial entry and found no error apparent on record.
Review petitions dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
REVIEW W.A.M.P.No.3641 of 2013 &
REVIEW W.A.M.P. (SR).No.211703 of 2013 IN W.A.No.1104 of 2011
REVIEW W.A.M.P.(SR).No.201482 of 2013 IN W.A.No.1151 of 2011
REVIEW W.A.M.P.No.3665 of 2013 IN W.A.No.1182 of 2011
REVIEW W.A.M.P.No.3934 of 2013 &
REVIEW W.A.M.P.(SR).No.185391 of 2013 IN W.A.No.577 of 2012
REVIEW W.A.M.P.Nos.3663 & 3683 of 2013 &
REVIEW W.A.M.P.(SR).No.211679 of 2013 IN W.A.No.596 of 2012
REVIEW W.A.M.P.(SR).Nos.174974 & 205585 of 2013 IN W.A.No.1213 of 2012
COMMON ORDER : (Per Justice R. Subhash Reddy)
This batch of writ appeal miscellaneous petitions is filed seeking review of the common judgment dated 17.09.2013 in Writ Appeal No.1104 of 2011 and batch, as such, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of disposal, we refer to the facts and parties as arrayed in Writ Appeal No.1104 of 2011, which is directed against the judgment dated 18.10.2011, in W.P.No.29418 of 2010.
2. The petitioners in writ petition No.29418 of 2010 are working as
Assistant Engineers in A.P.TRANSCO and Central Power Distribution Company Ltd. They have filed the aforesaid writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents in issuing Proceedings T.O.O.No.231, dated 23.12.2008 and Memo No.CGM (HRD&Trg.)/DS(P)/AS(P)/PO(Rec&Dep)/JPO/I/939/09, dated 23.09.2009, and the consequential final seniority list communicated vide Memo No.CGM(HRD/GM(Adm)/AS(Estt.)/PO-B/430/10, dated 30.09.2010, as illegal and arbitrary and violative of the basic tenets of the service jurisprudence and violative of Articles 4, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the same.
3. The erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) was constituted in accordance with the provisions under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. In exercise of powers under Section 79(c) of the said Act, the then Board has framed Regulations titled as “A.P.State Electricity Board Service Regulations”, which are in three parts, namely, Part-I, Part-II and Part-III. Consequent to enforcement of provisions under the A.P.Electricity Reforms Act, 1998, the activities of the Board were divided and succeeded by the Companies, namely, A.P.GENCO, A.P.TRANSCO and Distribution Companies. The service Regulations framed by the erstwhile Board were adopted by the succeeding Companies. Part-III of the APSEB Service Regulations deals with Classification and Control of services in the Board and the same were issued vide B.P.M.S.No.89, dated 02.02.1970 and they came into force from 04.03.1970.
4. The post of Assistant Engineer (A.E) is categorized in Category-III of Clause (2) of Annexure-I to Service Regulations-Part III. Initially, when the Rule was framed, appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer was through direct recruitment only. In the year 1994, the said Regulations were amended vide B.P.M.S.No.354, dated 12.12.1994 by providing for appointment by transfer of Graduate Sub-Engineers against 10% of vacancies. Clause (3) of the provision
so introduced mandates that Sub-Engineers, who are appointed against 10% vacancies by transfer, shall take the lowest rank as on the date of appointment, below the junior-most A.E. or trainee. During the years 2003, 2004 and 2005, no selections were made for appointment by way of direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer as per the Regulations. During the said years, Assistant Engineers were selected on yearly contract basis. Notifications issued expressly stated that such service is only on yearly contract basis for a limited period. At the same time, during the relevant years i.e. 2003, 2004 and 2005, regular appointments were made to the extent of 10% of vacancies by way of transfer from the category of Graduate Sub-Engineers. The tenure of the Assistant Engineers, who were appointed on yearly contract basis, was extended from time to time and they have also entered into agreements in the prescribed format, to continue as such on yearly contract basis and the contract agreements were renewed from time to time. The persons appointed on contract basis were paid consolidated remuneration at Rs.9,000/per month, and subsequently, on their representations, their services were regularized and they were appointed to the regular service under Regulation 14(a)(1) of APSEB Service Regulations Part-II during the year 2006 and they were extended the timescale of pay as applicable to the post of Assistant Engineer.
5. Subsequent to their regularization, Associations/Unions representing the employees have made representations to the authorities to consider the period of contract service as regular service for the purpose of promotion, seniority and pension. Such representations were considered in the meeting of CMDs of A.P.TRANSCO and DISCOMS, held on 24.11.2008, wherein, it was decided to extend the benefit of seniority by reckoning the service rendered during contract period as regular service for the purpose of fixing seniority only, without financial benefits and without pensionary benefits. Based on such decision, impugned proceedings in T.O.O.No.231, dated 23.12.2008, was issued. Such order and the
other consequential memos were under challenge in the writ petition.
6. Though the classification and control of services of Engineering staff were regulated by Statutory Regulations framed under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, which were framed vide B.P.M.S.No.354, dated 12.12.1994, the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited has issued Memo No.CGM(HRD&Trg)/ DS(P)/AS(P)/PO(Rec&Dep)/JPO-I/939/09, dated 23.09.2009, by way of clarification. The clarification is to the effect that the word “Junior most Assistant Engineer/Trainee” referred to at Clause-(ii)(3) of B.P.Ms.No.354, dated 12.12.1994 means junior most Assistant Engineer/Assistant Engineer (Trainee)/Assistant Engineer (Contract). Though the post of Assistant Engineer (Contract) was not there in the Regulations, the same is added by way of aforesaid Memo issued by the Joint Managing Director of the A.P.TRANSCO. Such Memo and the consequential seniority list issued vide Memo No.CGM(HRD/ GM(Adm)/AS(Estt.)/PO-B/430/10, dated 30.09.2010, were under challenge in the writ petition.
7. All the petitioners in the writ petitions are the appellants in the writ appeals and they are the Graduate Sub-Engineers who are appointed as Assistant Engineers in 10% quota. Earlier to issuance of final seniority list dated 30.09.2010, there was a seniority list in the category of Assistant Engineers, showing the Graduate Engineers as seniors to the contract Assistant Engineers whose services were regularized. When such lists were questioned before this Court, this Court disposed of the matters permitting the parties to raise objections before the authorities, with a direction to consider such objections before issuance of final seniority list. Inspite of objections, when seniority list was prepared contrary to the earlier seniority list, the Graduate Sub-Engineers, who are shown in the impugned seniority list as juniors to the contract Assistant Engineers whose services were regularized, have approached this Court. It is the case
of writ petitioner/appellants that an employee becomes a member of service if he is appointed on regular basis and the period during which he worked on contract basis, cannot be counted towards seniority. It is their case that the A.Es. appointed on contract basis did not even commence their probation by the time they (the petitioner/appellants) were appointed on regular basis under Regulation 14(a)(1) of the Regulations. It is also their case that though the appellants were rightly shown in the seniority list above the unofficial respondents in the initial stage, upon the representations made by the Contract A.Es. and on their mere asking, the authorities have issued orders to reckon the contract service as regular service and unilaterally taken decision detrimental to the interests of the appellants and another seniority list was issued showing the appellants below the Contract Assistant Engineers, which is contrary to the Regulations and settled principles of law governing the point. It is the case of the respondent-authorities and unofficial respondents that as the anomalies have crept-in in the provisional seniority list, same were rectified and final seniority list was prepared and issued as per the Rules and Regulations. It is their case that in view of the Memo dated 23.09.2009 clarifying the Regulations that the junior-most Assistant Engineer means junior most Assistant Engineer/Assistant Engineer (Trainee)/Assistant Engineer (Contract), the appellants were shown below the Assistant Engineers (Contract), pursuant to the orders issued by the authorities, by which, they have taken decision to reckon their seniority from the date of their initial appointment without granting any other benefits. It is their case that in view of Regulations 3(c) and 3(d) of Part-I, the authorities are empowered to regularize the contract service, as such, the impugned orders issued by the respondents are within the scope of the Regulations and the seniority list prepared also accords to the Regulations and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. The learned Single Judge, vide his judgment dated 18.10.2011, mainly on the ground that the respondents have taken steps to fill the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment on one hand and by appointment by transfer/promotion from in-service
candidates on the other hand simultaneously in the years 2003, 2004 and 2005 and also in view of the power under Regulations 3(c) and 3(d) of the Regulations, and by further recording a finding that the Board has exercised discretion as provided in the Regulations, has dismissed the writ petitions.
8. As against the common judgment in W.P.No.29418 of 2010 and batch, a batch of writ appeals is filed. Referring to the nature of appointment of the unofficial respondents into contract service, the Division Bench has held that they shall not be regarded as members of service for the purpose of counting seniority from the date of initial appointment on contract basis and further held that if a person is appointed on ad hoc basis or contract basis or on temporary basis to discharge the functions in a particular post, such person cannot be said to be in service till his appointment is regularized, subject to relevant Rules and Regulations governing such appointment. By further recording a finding that the respondents cannot override the statutory provisions in the Regulations by way of executive order and further placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.K.Subraman v. Union of India, has allowed the appeals and set aside the orders issued in T.O.O.No.231, dated 23.12.2008 and further held that the Assistant Engineers appointed on contract basis are not entitled to reckon their contract service for the purpose of seniority and they are entitled to compute their seniority only from the date of their regularization in the post.
9. As against the common judgment dated 17.09.2013 in Writ Appeal No.1104 of 2011 and batch, matters were carried by way of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.31681 of 2013, which was permitted to be withdrawn with permission to seek review of the said judgment before this Court. Subsequent to withdrawal of Special Leave petition, these review petitions are filed.
10. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana and Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel and other Advocates for the petitioners and Sri S.Ramachandra Rao, Sri M.Surender Rao and Sri L.Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel and other Advocates appearing for the unofficial respondents and Standing Counsel for official respondents.
11. In this batch of review petitions, mainly, it is the case of petitioners that there is error apparent on the face of record in the judgment rendered in W.A.No.1104 of 2011 and batch, as much as, the Division Bench has not referred to Regulations 3(c) and 3(d) of Part-I Regulations, which empower the employer to reckon the contract service for seniority. Further, Regulation 3(d) which empowers the authorities to absorb the person appointed on contract service into Board’s service in corresponding cadres on permanent basis, is not under challenge, as such, it is not open to challenge the orders issued by the authorities in Proceedings T.O.O.No.231, dated 23.12.2008 in exercise of powers under Regulation 3(d) of the Regulations. It is also their case that 10% of vacancies only are meant for recruitment by transfer to the Graduate Sub-Engineers since recruitments in the year 2003, 2004 and 2005 were on contract basis, the writ petitioner/appellants do not have any independent right to claim promotion by claiming seniority over the contract A.Es. It is submitted that the direct recruitment on one hand and recruitment by transfer on the other hand, have been initiated simultaneously during the years 2003, 2004 and 2005, as such, the writ petitioner/appellants cannot claim seniority over the unofficial respondents. It is submitted that but for the ban orders issued by the Government, as no regular recruitments were made, they were appointed on contract basis.
12. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing for writ petitioner/appellants that there is no basis or any
ground for seeking review of the judgment in Writ Appeal No.1104 of 2011 and batch. It is submitted that as the scope of review is limited to correct the errors apparent on the face of record and in the absence of any such errors, it is not open for the petitioners to seek review of the judgment. It is further contended that it is not correct that the Division Bench has not considered the effect of Regulations 3(c) and 3(d) of Part-I Regulations. It is further submitted that there is no need to challenge the power conferred under Regulation 3(d) as it has no application to the case on hand and further, in fact, Regulation 3(c) governs the case on hand and it determines the rights of contract A.Es. As much as the writ petitioner/appellants are aggrieved by orders issued in T.O.O.No.231, dated 23.12.2008, they have rightly questioned the same. Further, it is submitted that as the writ petitioners were appointed as regular A.Es. in substantive vacancies by way of recruitment by transfer and the unofficial respondents, who filed review petitions are appointed only on contract basis by entering into agreements and their services were regularized after appointment of the writ petitioners, they cannot claim any seniority over the writ petitioners. Further, by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Sudhakar Rao & others v. U.Govinda Rao & others, it is submitted that the review petitions are not maintainable as the scope of revision is limited for correction of errors apparent on record.
13. Having regard to the submissions made, we deem it appropriate to refer to the provisions under Regulation 3 of Part-I of A.P.State Electricity Board Service Regulations, which reads as under:
c.
d.
From a perusal of Regulation 3(c), it is clear that the Board is empowered to appoint any person or persons on contract basis on such terms as may be considered necessary and in such cases, the conditions and classifications of the service of such persons shall, except in so far as they are not governed by the terms of contract, be regulated by the provisions of the Regulations framed by the Board. As per Regulation 3(d), Board is empowered to absorb a person
appointed on contract basis into Board’s service in corresponding cadres on permanent basis. Such persons may, in the discretion of the Board, be given credit for the full period of their contract service or part thereof and thereupon, such service shall be taken into account for all purposes, including seniority, probation, leave and pension.
14. Regulation 26 of Part-II Service Regulations framed by the Board deals with seniority and it reads as under:
“26. Seniority :-
Provided that where no ranking has been fixed in respect of any person in a service, class, category or grade, the seniority of such candidate shall be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade. If any portion of the service of such person does not count towards probation under regulations 14(c), (e), 19 and 38(b), his seniority shall be determined by the date of commencement of his service, which counts towards probation.”
From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the seniority of a person in a class of service shall be determined by the rank obtained by him in the list of approved candidates drawn up by the Board or other appointing authority as the case may be. Further, as per the proviso also, it is clear that if any portion of service of such
person does not count towards probation under regulations 14(c), (e), 19 and 38(b), his seniority shall be determined by the date of commencement of his service, which counts towards probation.
15. As per the statutory Regulations framed by the Board, as amended, it is clear that 10% of the vacancies in each recruitment are meant for filling up by way of transfer of eligible candidates among the Sub-Engineers. It is true that during the years 2003, 2004 and 2005, though regular vacancies were available, such vacancies were not filled by way of direct recruitment. From the notifications issued during the relevant years, it is clear that applications are solicited for appointment only on yearly contract basis on consolidated remuneration. It is also relevant to note that after appointment on contract basis, they were issued appointment orders by imposing the following conditions, which are extracted in the judgment of Division Bench in the Writ Appeals, as under :
“1. Sri xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is provisionally appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electc) on contract basis for a period of one year subject to provisions laid down vide reference first cited and compliance to the following:
2. The candidate on appointment as Assistant Engineer shall have to undergo on the job training for one month.
3. The candidate shall execute an agreement in prescribed form on non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only). A copy of prescribed form of the Agreement to be executed is appended to this order.
4. XXXX XXXX XXXX
5. The candidate shall appear before the Chairman & Managing Director of the concerned Distribution Company/General Manager (Personal) in respect of APTRANSCO on 29.4.2002 at 10.30 AM. He/she shall furnish the original certificates relating to
qualification, age, caste, employment car etc., and contract agreement for verification and the same will be retained until the agreement period is over.
6. The appointment shall be only on contract basis initially for a period of one year i.e. from 1.5.2002 and renewable on year to year basis, based on his/her performance with a consolidated remuneration of Rs.9000/- (Rupees nine thounsand only) per month all inclusive.
7. The candidate appointed under this scheme shall not be regarded as member of service in A.P.TRASCO/DISCOM and shall not be entitled by reason only of such appointment to any preferential right to any other appointment in that or in any other service in future.
8. xxxxxx xxxxxx
xxxx
9. xxxxx xxxxxx
xxxx”
From a reading of the aforesaid conditions, it is clear that the appointment was on contract basis on year to year basis on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.9,000/- per month and it is also specifically stated that the candidate appointed under the scheme shall not be regarded as a member of service in A.P.TRANSCO/DISCOMS and shall not be entitled, by reason only of such appointment, to any preferential right to any other appointment or any other service in future. Had the notification was for appointment on regular basis, many more applicants could have responded to such notification. May be for the reason that the appointment was only on contract basis, limited applicants must have applied therefor. It is true that their contract services were extended from time to time and when they sought regularization of service, orders for regularization were issued by imposing a specific clause that they have to submit an undertaking in the prescribed proforma, to
the effect that they will not claim any service benefits for the period worked on contract basis as A.Es. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioner/appellants were appointed in the vacancies meant for recruitment by transfer and their appointments were earlier to regularization of services of contract A.Es. Inspite of the fact that their appointment itself is on yearly contract basis, the authorities have responded to the representations and regularized their services. Having issued regularization orders with a specific clause that they shall not claim any other benefit of contract service, when further representations are made, impugned orders are issued to reckon their seniority without any other benefit. From a perusal of Regulation 26 of Part-II Regulations, it is clear that if any portion of service of any candidate appointed does not count towards probation under Regulations 14(c), (e), 19 and 38(b), his seniority shall be determined by the date of commencement of service which counts towards probation. In this case, the probation of petitioners who filed review petitions, commences only after regularization of their service but not earlier to such regularization. In that view of the matter, the petitioners, who were initially appointed on contract basis, are not entitled for seniority from the date of their initial entry into service on contract basis. Having regard to the conditional appointment orders and further conditions imposed while regularizing their services, neither it is open for them to claim the benefit of seniority nor it is open for the respondent-authorities to consider such claims on mere asking. In view of the specific agreements entered into by the contract employees on their appointment, they are governed by Regulation 3(c) of Part-I Regulations, but not Regulation 3(d). In any event, the discretion conferred on the Board under Regulation 3(d) also cannot be exercised in detrimental to the interests of others with regard to seniority. Regulation 3(d) may empower the authorities to absorb a person appointed on contract basis into regular service, but such discretion conferred under Regulation 3(d) cannot be used in detrimental to the interests of the candidates appointed on regular basis, with regard to their seniority. In that view of the matter, we are not in agreement with the submission made by the learned Senior
Counsel Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana and Sri G.Vidyasagar that while delivering the judgment, the Division Bench has lost sight of the provisions under Regulations 3(c) and 3(d). Having regard to the findings recorded, it is clear that the Division Bench has categorically found that the review petitioners herein are appointed by way of agreements on yearly contract basis, as such, they are referable to the provision under Regulation 3(c) only. As much as the effect of Regulations 3(c) and 3(d) is already considered by the Division Bench, we find no substance in the submission made to seek review only on the ground that such provisions are not considered while delivering the judgment. By virtue of Regulation 3(c), the contract employees are not entitled for computation of seniority having regard to the agreements executed by them with specific clauses with regard to their service conditions, remuneration etc.
16. Further, coming to the submission of the learned counsel for review petitioners that the orders in T.O.O.No.231, dated 23.12.2008 are issued in exercise of powers conferred under Regulation 3(d) of Part-I Regulations and in the absence of questioning Regulation 3(d), there are no grounds to seek invalidation of said orders, it is to be noticed that in view of the agreements entered into by the contract employees with specific service conditions, Regulation 3(c) will only apply. As the writ petitioner/appellants were aggrieved of the orders issued in T.O.O.No.231, dated 23.12.2008, they have rightly questioned such orders and by recording reasons, the Division Bench has set aside the said orders. Further, it is to be noticed that there appears no valid reason for issuing proceedings under T.O.O.No.231, dated 23.12.2008, as the appointments were made on contract basis by entering into agreements by incorporating a clause in the appointment orders that such contract employees are not entitled to the benefit of seniority and other benefits with regard to the contractual service and further regularization orders are issued with a specific condition that they are not entitled to claim the benefits of contract service. In the absence of valid reasons for issuing the
orders in T.O.O.No.231, dated 23.12.2008, which runs contrary to the earlier orders issued by the authorities, the same were rightly set aside by this Court and the submission of the learned counsel that Regulation 3(d) was not under challenge, cannot be a ground for seeking review. The further submission of the learned counsel for review petitioners that the simultaneous appointments were made for recruitment by transfer and by way of direct recruitment in the years 2003, 2004 and 2005, it is to be noticed that so far as the vacancies reserved for recruitment by transfer are concerned, appointments were made on regular basis, whereas, the other vacancies were filled up only on contract basis. When the notification itself was issued for appointment on contract basis and appointment orders were issued appointing such applicants on year to year contract basis, which were renewed subsequently, they cannot claim seniority over the A.Es. appointed on regular basis in the quota meant for Graduate Sub-Engineers. In the judgment in A.K.Subraman’s case (1 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :
“the hopes and aspirations of the promotees cannot be related to the availability or non-availability of the direct recruits to fill their quota and each such quota shall have to be worked out independently.”
In the case of K.Madalaimuthu & another v. State of Tamilnadu & others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the seniority of a person appointed temporarily to a particular post without recourse to the recruitment rules, can be counted only from the date on which his services are regularized. In State of Punjab & another v. Ashwani Kumar & others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the candidates who are initially appointed on ad hoc basis were subsequently regularized, the ad hoc service cannot be counted for seniority.
17. Further, in the judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel Sri S.Ramachandra Rao, appearing for respondents, in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati & others, while considering the scope
of review under Order 47 Rule 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarized the principles relating to review jurisdiction and held as to when a review is maintainable and when it is not maintainable, as under :
“The principles relating to review jurisdiction may be summarized as follows:
When the review will be maintainable:
The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram (1921-22) 49 IA 144 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos, AIR 1954 SC 526 to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”.
When the review will not be maintainable :
iv.
Further, in the case of N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria & others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the scope of ‘error apparent on the face of record’, has held that rehearing the matter on merits in the name of review, is not permissible. This judgment also supports the case of respondents in these review petitions.
18. By applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, we are of the view that this case will not fall within the scope of principles which permit review and certainly it falls within the principles where review is not maintainable. Further, from the reasons stated supra, we are of the view that there is no error apparent on the face of record, warranting interference by way of these review petitions.
19. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this batch of review petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J
22nd April 2015
ajr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether employees appointed on yearly contract basis are entitled to reckon their contract service for seniority after regularization under Regulation 3(c) of Service Regulations.
Whether the Division Bench erred in law by not considering Regulations 3(c) and 3(d) of Part-I while dismissing the writ petition.
Whether the review petitions filed on the ground of error apparent on the face of record are maintainable under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
A.K. Subraman v. Union of IndiaDistinguished¶26
A.K. Subraman v. Union of India
P. Sudhakar Rao & others v. U. Govinda Rao & othersRelied on¶30
P. Sudhakar Rao & others v. U. Govinda Rao & others
K. Madalaimuthu & another v. State of Tamilnadu & othersDistinguished¶67
K. Madalaimuthu & another v. State of Tamilnadu & others
State of Punjab & another v. Ashwani Kumar & othersDistinguished¶67
State of Punjab & another v. Ashwani Kumar & others
Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati & othersReferred¶68
Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati & others
N. Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria & othersRelied on¶87
N. Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria & others
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Graduate Sub-Engineers appointed as Assistant Engineers in 10% quota
Unofficial respondents (Contract Assistant Engineers)
R. SUBHASH REDDY
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
