Ensuring Parity in Recruitment for Ex-Casual Laborers: A New Rule on Seniority and Equal Treatment

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India’s Judgment in The Superintending Engineer Operation, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Ch. Bhaskara Chary (2025 INSC 428) addresses crucial issues of recruitment and the principle of parity in public employment. In this dispute, the Respondent, an ex-casual laborer, claimed eligibility for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk (“LDC”) based on a recruitment policy that gave preference to ex-casual laborers. However, the Appellant power distribution company challenged the Respondent’s eligibility, citing concerns about the authenticity of his service certificate and the withdrawal of the recruitment policy.

The Judgment examines whether the Respondent’s name was legitimately included in what was alleged to be a “list of eligible candidates” or a “seniority list,” and whether other candidates in the same list — placed lower but possessing fewer man-days of service — had already been appointed. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s directive to reconsider the Respondent’s appointment, guiding public employers not to treat similarly situated candidates unequally. This commentary delves into the background, judicial findings, reasoning, and broader implications of this decision.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part (by setting out directions to have the Respondent’s case reconsidered) but rejected the Appellant’s key contention that the list of eligible candidates was not a “seniority list.” The Court noted that the Appellant had already appointed candidates who were lower in this list and had fewer man-days of service. Consequently, it found that parity of treatment demanded the Respondent’s case be properly assessed.

Importantly, while upholding the principle of equal treatment for similarly placed ex-casual laborers, the Court also left open whether the Respondent’s service certificate was genuine. The Court clarified that if the certificate was indeed not genuine, that could be grounds for disqualification — but that decision must comply with due process. Finally, the Supreme Court instructed the Appellant to render a fresh determination of the Respondent’s eligibility within six weeks, emphasizing that the dispute had been pending since 2008.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

While the Judgment references various High Court Orders in Writ Petitions (such as W.P. No. 26515 of 2004 and W.P. No. 858 of 2009), it does not extensively discuss earlier Supreme Court precedents by name. Nonetheless, the principle of equality in Article 14 of the Constitution of India and established rules for public employment form the underlying legal backbone.

The High Court rulings on similarly placed ex-casual laborers—where candidates with fewer man-days were granted appointments—serve as de facto precedents. Moreover, the Supreme Court was influenced by the principle that once a policy is implemented, employers cannot apply it selectively to benefit some candidates while denying it to those who are more meritorious. Hence, despite no direct invocation of major Supreme Court jurisdictional precedents by name, the overarching theme resonates with equal protection and non-discrimination from Indian constitutional jurisprudence.

Legal Reasoning

1. Verification of the “Seniority List”
The primary contention revolved around whether the Respondent’s name appeared in a simple “list of eligible candidates” versus a formal “seniority list.” The Appellant contended that the list was merely for organizing interviews, whereas the Respondent—and the High Court—maintained that it was arranged strictly by the date of initial engagement, thereby reflecting seniority. The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court that the ordering of candidates by their first date of engagement was indeed an indicator of seniority.

2. Equal Treatment of Similar Candidates
The Court stressed that once the Appellant acknowledged—and even appointed—applicants who possessed fewer man-days or were ranked lower in this list, it was compelled to grant a fair consideration to the Respondent. The Court concluded that “candidates with lesser man-days than the Respondent, who are placed relatively lower...have been appointed,” and thus it was incumbent upon the Appellant to treat the Respondent similarly under the same policy.

3. Authenticity of the Service Certificate
Although the Supreme Court did not settle this question, it acknowledged the Appellant’s argument regarding the genuineness of the Respondent’s service certificate. Rather than outright rejecting or accepting this claim, the Court held that the Respondent’s case must be reconsidered, and if the certificate indeed proves to be invalid, the Appellant can base a decision on that ground. The Court, however, emphasized that the seniority-based claims should not be denied unless the certificate was proven false.

4. Withdrawal of the Underlying Recruitment Policy
The Appellant attempted to justify the rejection by citing the withdrawal of the policy that favored ex-casual laborers. The Judgement clarified that this withdrawal did not automatically nullify pending claims, especially if the policy was in effect when similarly placed individuals were appointed. Therefore, the High Court’s directive to consider the Respondent’s appointment in light of his earlier claims stood on firm ground.

Impact

This Judgment has significant implications for how public sector bodies must handle recruitment policies—particularly those related to casual or contract-based employees:

• Consistency and Transparency: Employers cannot pick and choose whom to appoint from a list of similarly situated candidates; failure to follow consistent criteria may be deemed discriminatory.
• Responding to Past Commitments: Where an employer has created a policy or given an assurance for absorption/appointment of ex-casual laborers, courts may require them to honor that commitment equally among eligible candidates—even if the underlying policy is later withdrawn.
• Due Process on Verification: Questions as to the authenticity of documentation must be addressed through proper fact-finding. Blanket rejections without fair inquiry can be reversed by courts.
• Precedential Value: Future ex-casual or contractual employees seeking regular posts can rely on this Judgment to demonstrate that they must be treated on par with others who share a similar or inferior standing in terms of seniority or man-days.

Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Seniority List: This is effectively a ranked list of employees or candidates, usually based on their initial date of engagement or length of service. In public employment contexts, seniority often affects promotions, appointments, and other benefits. Here, the Court found that the list in question did in fact reflect seniority.

2. Man-Days: A “man-day” typically refers to a unit of measure indicating one day’s worth of labor performed by a single worker. In this case, it served as an indicator of how long each ex-casual laborer had actually worked, thus potentially determining seniority or eligibility.

3. Ex-Casual Laborers: These are individuals who worked on a project or job for an employer on a short-term or casual basis without formal, permanent status. Certain policies or government orders sometimes provide for the absorption or regularization of such laborers if they meet specific criteria.

4. Supernumerary Posts: A supernumerary post is a temporary position created outside the usual organizational chart to accommodate special circumstances, such as a court order for the appointment of someone who doesn’t fit neatly into an existing vacancy. The High Court ordered that if no direct post was available, the Respondent could be appointed to a suitable supernumerary post.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of India in this case affirmed the High Court’s stance that a public employer cannot grant appointments to certain candidates (who have fewer man-days) while denying similarly or better-placed applicants from the same category. The Judgment’s significance resides in its firm endorsement of pari passu (equal footing) principles and its emphasis on consistency in public employment decisions. Moreover, the Court drew a critical line between allegations of falsified documents and legitimate seniority claims, reminding employers that due process and factual reviews must precede any final denials.

This decision clarifies that even if a policy or scheme is subsequently withdrawn, it does not automatically undermine pending claims filed under that policy. Ultimately, the decision stands as an important milestone in ensuring that ex-casual laborers are not overlooked or unfairly disqualified when more junior or less meritorious candidates have already been granted full appointments. By enforcing thorough fact-checking, transparency, and fairness, the Court has set a robust precedent guiding recruitment practices moving forward.