V.Venkata Narayana And 3 Others vs. Transmission Corporation Of Telangana Limited And Another

Held

The Court held that the amendment to the impugned proceedings was valid. The reasoning was based on the Supreme Court's clarificatory order stating that benefits not extended earlier cannot be restored. The Court found that no benefits or advantages were extended to the petitioners prior to them clearing the special examination conducted by UGC/AICTE. Therefore, their qualification could only be treated as valid with prospective effect from the date they cleared the examination. The Court also distinguished the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment, noting it did not deal with the retrospective or prospective validity of qualifications. Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. All writ petitions were dismissed.

Facts

The petitioners, employees of Telangana State electricity distribution companies, challenged proceedings issued by the Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited (TSTRANSCO) and Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TSSPDCL). These proceedings amended a clause, effectively making the qualification obtained by the petitioners from IASE, Rajasthan, valid only prospectively after they cleared a special examination conducted by UGC/AICTE. The petitioners argued that this amendment was illegal and contrary to Supreme Court judgments, particularly in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Ltd. They contended that their qualifications should be recognized retrospectively as they had cleared the examination. The respondents argued that since no benefits were extended earlier, benefits could not be restored retrospectively. The Court was also referred to a previous judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the amendment to Clause-C of the impugned proceedings, making the petitioners' qualification valid only prospectively after clearing the UGC/AICTE examination, is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Supreme Court judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Ltd. (2018(1) SCC 468) and a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the amendment was illegal and arbitrary, violating Article 14, and that the Supreme Court judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Ltd. mandated the retrospective recognition of their qualifications. They asserted that having cleared the examination, their qualifications should be treated as valid from the date of acquisition. Respondent's contention: The respondents argued that the Supreme Court's clarificatory order held that benefits not extended earlier cannot be restored. They contended that since no service benefits were extended to the petitioners prior to clearing the UGC/AICTE examination, the qualification could only be treated as valid prospectively. They also distinguished the AP High Court judgment, stating it did not address the retrospective or prospective validity of qualifications.