The Transmission Corporation of Telangana State Limited & Another vs Chukkala Kranthi Kiran & Others

2025 INSC 1029 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No.__________/2025 (@ SLP (C) No.11149/2020)

THE TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF TELANGANA STATE LIMITED & ANR. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

CHUKKALA KRANTHI KIRAN & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

C.A. No.__________/2025 (@ SLP(C) No. 11481/2020) C.A. No.__________/2025 (@ SLP(C) No. 11170/2020) C.A. No.__________/2025 (@ SLP(C) No. 12599/2020) C.A. No.__________/2025 (@ SLP(C) No. 761/2021)

JUDGMENT

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

1. Leave Granted.

KAPIL TANDON Date: 2025.08.22 19:04:26 IST Reason:

1

2. 1st Appellant- Transmission Corporation of Telangana State

Ltd.1 has challenged the judgment and order dated 06.03.2020

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Telangana

setting aside notification No. 519 dated 11.12.2017 cancelling

the earlier notifications issued by erstwhile Transmission

Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd.2 in 2011-12 as

unsustainable, quashing the subsequent notification no.

05/2017 dated 28.12.2017 issued by 1st appellant proposing

to initiate a fresh selection process for the post of Sub-

Engineer (Electrical) and directing the appointment of the

respondent-writ petitioners who were selected pursuant to the

earlier notifications issued by the erstwhile AP-Transco.

Facts

3. AP-Transco was incorporated in 1998 as a wholly owned

subsidiary of State of Andhra Pradesh for carrying on

transmission and distribution of electricity in the State. On

15.12.2011 AP-Transco issued notification for recruitment of

339 Sub-Engineers in six (6) zones in the composite State of

Andhra Pradesh.

1 ‘TS-Transco’ for short.

2 ‘AP-Transco’ for short.

2

4. The selection for the aforesaid posts was to be made from open

candidates and in-service (contractual) candidates on a scale

of 100 marks with a maximum of 55 marks for written exam

and 45 marks for in-service experience. The written

examination was held on 15.04.2012. For the in-service

candidates additional weightage of two and half marks (2 ½

marks) for six months’ service up to 45 marks was prescribed.

This weightage was challenged before the High Court in W.P

No.3753 of 2012 and batch.

5. A Single Judge of the High Court by common order dated

09.12.2013 restricted the weightage for experience up to 20

per cent and directed two marks for every completed year of

service.

6. The matter was carried in appeal3 and the Division Bench vide

orders dated 03.06.2014 and 25.07.2014, while upholding the

weightage as prescribed by the Single Judge directed AP-

Transco to conduct a fresh written examination for 80 marks.

AP-Transco unsuccessfully challenged the order before the

Apex Court4.

3 In Writ Appeal No.110 of 2014 and Batch.

4 SLP(C) CC No. 20284 of 2014.

3

7. Meanwhile, on 02.06.2014 composite State of Andhra Pradesh

was re-organized in terms of Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation

Act, 20145. Consequently, State of Telangana was carved out

of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh. While operation of

AP-Transco was confined to existing Andhra Pradesh, TS-

Transco was incorporated on 02.06.2014 for the State of

Telangana.

8. In view of the aforesaid developments, review petitions were

filed by the distribution companies AP Southern Power and AP

Central Power Ltd. before the Division Bench of the High Court

for review of the orders dated 03.06.2014 and 25.07.2014 in

light of the bifurcation of the State, resulting in organizational

changes and impracticability of holding fresh examination as

per the earlier notifications. By order6 dated 26.12.2014 the

Division Bench disposed of the review petitions observing as

follows:

“Once the distribution companies have undergone changes in light of bifurcation of the State, they cannot be compelled to proceed with the selection process, initiated earlier. They shall certainly have the liberty to take up the selection process in accordance with law and their present area of operation.”

5 Hereinafter, AP Reorganisation Act.

6 Review W.A.M.P. No. 4158 of 2014 in W.A.No.610 of 2014 and WAMP No. 4180 of 2014 in W.A.No.110 of 2014.

4 9. Some candidates who had appeared in written test conducted

by erstwhile AP-Transco also took out review petitions, inter

alia, seeking review of the decision to undertake a fresh

examination in the earlier selection process. The Division

Bench by order7 dated 13.10.2017 clarified as follows:

“The order under review is set-aside to the limited extent the Division Bench had, by its order in W.A. No. 110 of 2014 and batch dated 03.06.2014, directed that a fresh written examination be conducted by the respective distribution companies for the respective posts for 80 marks, informing all candidates at least four weeks in advance before conducting the examination; and for completion of the entire process within a period of 6 months. While we express no opinion on the decision which the respondents should take pursuant to the order now passed by us, suffice it to make it clear that our order shall not be understood as a mandamus to either the Transmission Corporations or the Distribution Companies to proceed with the selection process undertaken pursuant to the earlier notifications of the years 2011 and 2012, or to make appointment pursuant thereto, as these are all matters for the Transmission Corporations and the Distribution Companies to consider. The respondents, in these review petitions, shall take a decision on the selections made, pursuant to the notifications issued in the years 2011 and 2012, in accordance with law with utmost expedition and, in any event, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

10. Thereafter, the TS-Transco took a policy decision not to proceed

with the earlier selection process undertaken by the erstwhile

AP-Transco for the combined State and issued notification

dated 11.12.2017 declaring the earlier notifications dated

7 Review W.A.M.P. No. 4180 of 2017 in W.A.No.110 of 2014.

5 15.12.2011, 16.01.2012 and 26.02.2012 to have lapsed. On an

assessment of its altered requirements on 28.12.2017 TS-

Transco issued another notification for a fresh selection process

to recruit 174 Sub-Engineers (Electrical) in the State of

Telangana. Taking note of the legitimate expectations of the

candidates who had appeared in the earlier selection process,

the age limit for participating in the new selection was extended

to 44 years. We are informed most of the writ petitioners

participated in the new selection process and had been selected.

11. After the initiation of the fresh selection process, respondents

have assailed notification dated 11.12.2017 cancelling the

earlier notifications issued by erstwhile AP-Transco as well as

the subsequent notification dated 28.12.2017 for fresh selection

in Writ Petition No. 3153 of 2018, 6165 of 2018 and 14985 of

2018.

Findings of the High Court

12. Division Bench hearing the writ petitions formulated the

following issues:

(a) Whether the petitioners who appeared in the written examination pursuant to the notifications issued on 15.12.2011, 16.01.2012 and 26.02.2011 and qualified therein are entitled to insist that they must be appointed pursuant to the said selection?

(b) Whether the decision of the T.S. Transco in T.O.O. (CGM-HRD) Rt.No.519 dt. 11.12.2017 to declare that the above referred notifications issued

6 prior to 02.06.2014 for direct recruitment of Sub Engineer (Electrical), Junior Assistant and Junior Linemen posts with reference to the Zones of Telangana are deemed to have lapsed?

(c) Whether Notification No.5/2017 dt. 28.12.2017 issued by T.S. Transco proposing to fill up posts of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) is sustainable or not?

13. Division Bench answered the issues as follows:

Issues (a) and (b) :-

77. “Accordingly, we hold that there is no valid reason existing for issuance of T.O.O. (CGM-HRD) Rt.No.519 dt.11.12.2017 by the TSTRANSCO stating that the pre-2014 notifications issued by APTRANSCO on 15.12.2011, 16.01.2012 and 26.02.2012 have lapsed. However, since the instant cases relate to only to cases of candidates who aspire for posts of Sub-Engineers (Electrical) only, we would grant relief only as regards the said posts and not other posts such as Junior Lineman or Junior Assistant.

78. Therefore, we hold on point (b) that the decision of the T.S. TRANSCO in T.O.O. (CGM-HRD) Rt.No.519 dt. 11.12.2017 declaring that the above referred notifications issued prior to 02.06.2014 for direct recruitment of Sub Engineer (Electrical), with reference to the Zones of Telangana are deemed to have lapsed, is unsustainable and accordingly we set it aside and direct the TSTRANSCO to continue the process of selection to the said post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) pursuant to the Notifications issued by the erstwhile APTRANSCO on 15.12.2011, 16.01.2012 and 26.02.2012 and issue appointment letters to all selected candidates including the Writ Petitioners subject to their meeting all other eligibility conditions.”

Issue (c) :-

79. “As a result of our findings on points (a) and (b), we hold that on point (c) that Notification No.5/2017 dt.28.12.2017 issued by T.S.TRANSCO proposing to fill up posts of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) is unsustainable.”

Conclusion:-

80. “Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed; and the action of T.S. TRANSCO in T.O.O. (CGM-HRD) Rt.No.519 dt. 11.12.2017 declaring that the above referred notifications issued prior to

7 02.06.2014 for direct recruitment of Sub Engineer (Electrical), with reference to the Zones of Telangana are deemed to have lapsed, and Notification No.5/2017 dt. 28.12.2017 issued by T.S. TRANSCO proposing to fill up posts of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) are illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; they are accordingly set aside; and we direct the TSTRANSCO to continue the process of selection to the said post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) pursuant to the Notifications issued by the erstwhile APTRANSCO on 15.12.2011, 16.01.2012 and 26.02.2012 and issue appointment letters to all selected candidates including the Writ Petitioners subject to their meeting all other eligibility conditions. No costs.”

Analysis

14. We have heard Mr. Gourab Banerji, learned senior counsel for

the appellant TS-Transco and Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned

senior counsel for the respondent-writ petitioners.

15. An earlier selection process for recruitment of 339 Sub-

Engineers had been undertaken by erstwhile AP-Transco for

the combined State of Andhra Pradesh. The selection process

suffered a jolt as the open candidates challenged the weightage

of 45 marks given to in-service candidates. The Single Bench

as well as the Division Bench reduced the weightage to 20

marks which was not interfered with by this Court. AP-Transco

was directed to conduct a fresh written test in light of the

revised weightage scheme.

16. Due to such litigation the selection process could not be

completed and in the meantime on 02.06.2014, State of

8 Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into the State of Telangana

and the State of Andhra Pradesh. TS-Transco was incorporated

to cater to the State of Telangana while the jurisdiction of

erstwhile AP-Transco was restricted to the State of Andhra

Pradesh. After the bifurcation, review petitions were filed by

the distribution companies before the Division Bench to clarify

the orders dated 03.06.2014 and 25.07.2014 which had

reduced the weightage with regard to the earlier selection

process vis-à-vis in-service candidates and had directed a

further written examination. It was pointed out on behalf of the

distribution companies that post-bifurcation the requirements

needed to be re-assessed and fresh selection process may be

undertaken. Candidates also sought review of the orders

directing fresh examination. As the transmission/distribution

companies as well as the aspiring candidates were in

agreement that fresh examination need not be conducted and

taking note of the changed scenario in light of the bifurcation

of the State, the Division Bench by orders dated 26.12.2014

and 13.10.2017 clarified that no fresh examination with regard

to the earlier selection process was necessary and the said

orders need not be treated as a mandamus upon the

9 transmission/distribution companies to proceed with the

selection process undertaken as per the earlier notifications.

17. Pursuant to such clarification, the 1st appellant TS-Transco by

notification dated 11.12.2017 cancelled the earlier selection

process and issued a new notification dated 28.12.2017 for

recruitment of 174 Sub-Engineers for the new State of

Telangana.

18. These notifications were challenged by respondent-writ

petitioners who contended that the decision to scrap the earlier

selection process was arbitrary and unreasonable. The High

Court concurred with the writ petitioners and came to a finding

that the decision to cancel the earlier selection process was

unsustainable. While doing so the High Court had discussed

relevant file notings culminating in the impugned decision as

follows:

“ The file produced contains a note put up to the Board of the TSTRANSCO which mentions that the notifications were issued during 2011-12 for Direct Recruitment of Sub-Engineer, Junior Assistant (Accounts) and Junior Lineman; the modalities of giving 45% weightage to in-service contract labour; challenge thereto in the High Court and the order dt.03.06.2014 in the batch of Writ Petitions reducing the weightage from 45 to 20 marks; the bifurcation of the erstwhile APTRANSCO into APTRANSCO and TSTRANSCO w.e.f. 02.06.2014; opinion of the Counsel of the TSTRANSCO; order dt. 13.10.2017 in Rev. W.A.M.P. No.4180 of 2014 and batch in W.A.Nos.110 of 2014 and batch; and in para no.5 abruptly states :

10 "5. In the light of the above judgment, the issue was discussed in TSPCC meeting on 27.11.2017 and it was decided to issue fresh notification for the vacancies available as on to-day as per requirement. The earlier notifications, if any, issued prior to 02.06.2014 are deemed to have been lapsed."

19. Referring to the aforesaid notings the High Court held:

“66. It is shocking that both TSTRANSCO and APTRANSCO acted as if this Court gave a license to them to cancel the selections pursuant to the said notifications as per their whims and fancies and hide behind the said order dt. 13.10.2017 in Rev. W.A.M.P.No.4180 of 2014 and batch in W.A.No.110/2014 and batch.”

20. We have examined the findings of the High Court in light of the

relevant materials on record. The Division Bench had noted

the well settled proposition of law that selected candidates do

not have a vested right to appointment and no mandamus can

be issued upon the employer to appoint from a select list.

However, any decision not to fill up vacancies from a select list

must be taken bona fide and for appropriate reasons.8

21. While so, in the factual matrix the Division Bench came to a

finding that the decision to scrap the earlier selection process

and undertake a new recruitment exercise was an

unreasonable one. We are of the view such finding is erroneous

and based on an incorrect appreciation of the file notings and

8 Shankarshan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47.

11 the conclusion arrived thereto. A perusal of the observations

regarding file notings in the impugned judgment would show

TS-Transco took a policy decision to cancel the earlier selection

process and initiate a new one considering the following

factors:

(i) Challenge to notifications issued in 2011-2012 on

the ground of additional weightage to in-service

candidates resulting in delay in conclusion of the

selection process,

(ii) Bifurcation of the State on 02.06.2014 in the

meantime,

(iii) Order dated 13.10.2017 passed in review petition9

wherein the High Court clarified there is no mandamus

to proceed with the selection process under the 2011-

2012 notifications.

22. The aforesaid factors clearly show the time-lag in concluding

the earlier selection process undertaken in 2011-2012 due to

pending litigations and the bifurcation of the composite State

of Andhra Pradesh in the meantime. Post-bifurcation, TS-

Transco was incorporated for the State of Telangana. Taking

9 Rev. W.A.M.P No. 4180 of 2014 and Batch.

12 note of these circumstances and liberty given by the High

Court vide order dated 13.10.2017 to take an independent

decision whether to continue or initiate a fresh selection

process, TS-Transco decided to cancel the earlier selection

process and initiate a new recruitment drive to cater to its

altered needs and requirements in the new State of Telangana.

23. The High Court incorrectly held TS-Transco had cancelled the

earlier selection process by treating order dated 13.10.2017 in

review petition as a clear mandate. Reference to the said order

must be understood in light of the preceding events recorded

in the file notings particularly the delay in the earlier selection

process and the bifurcation of the State giving rise to a re-

assessment of human resource requirements in the new State,

justifying a new selection process.

24. The High Court further reasoned, as the earlier selection had

been made zone-wise for the composite State of Andhra

Pradesh and three of six zones fell within the State of

Telangana, there was no impediment for the successor TS-

Transco to make appointments from the aforesaid select list

pertaining to those three zones.

13

25. This argument is wholly fallacious. Though the combined State

in the earlier notification was sub-divided into six zones, three

out of which namely, Hyderabad Metro, Hyderabad Rural and

Warangal fell in the State of Telangana, subsequent

notification divided the new State of Telangana into two zones,

namely North and South. Northern zone consisted of old

districts of Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy, Medak, Mahabubnagar

and Nalgonda whereas Southern zone consisted of Warangal,

Adilabad, Karimnagar, Khammam and Nizamabad. In the

earlier notification, number of candidates sought to be

recruited for the erstwhile three zones (falling in the new State

of Telangana) was 133, whereas the number of candidates

proposed to be recruited in the new notification was 174 for

the entire State sub-divided in two zones. Moreover, the

proportion of local reservation was also altered from 80:20 (in

the earlier notifications) to 70:30 (in the subsequent

notification)10.

26. Given this situation, the fresh recruitment drive by no stretch

of imagination can be construed as a continuation of the earlier

recruitment process initiated in 2011-2012 for the combined

10 Notification No. 05/2017 dt. 28.12.2017 Part VIII Procedure for Selection, Note (a).

14 State of Andhra Pradesh justifying culling out candidates from

the earlier select list pertaining to zones which fell within the

new State of Telangana.

27. Mr. B Adinarayana Rao would argue that though the

candidates in the select list did not have a vested right to

appointment, their legitimate expectation of being considered

in the subsequent selection process cannot be ignored.

28. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant-Transco such

legitimate expectation was duly considered and vide

notification dated 28.12.2017 adequate age relaxation was

given so that scrapping of the earlier selection process does not

unjustly deny any candidate the opportunity to participate in

the new selection process. The High Court failed to consider

the decision-making process from this perspective and sat in

judgment over the sufficiency of accommodation given to the

selected candidates in the subsequent selection.

29. It cannot be said that TS-Transco had not taken into

consideration the legitimate expectation of candidates selected

in the earlier selection process and had accommodated them

by giving age relaxation so that they may participate in the new

selection process. In fact, all the respondent-writ petitioners

15 availed of such opportunity and participated in the new

recruitment process. A Court exercising judicial review cannot

second guess the manner in which the authority would

address the issue of legitimate expectation. Once the Court is

satisfied that such issue had been taken into consideration

and age relaxation given, its sufficiency or otherwise would not

fall within the domain of judicial review.

30. Respondents have referred to East Coast Railway v. Mahadeva

Apparao11 to contend that mere age relaxation is not adequate

solace in the event the decision to scrap the earlier selection is

found to be flawed. The factual matrix in East Coast (supra) is

clearly distinguishable. The Court in the cited case had held

that the ground for cancelling the earlier selection process

namely faulty typewriting test was merely speculative. On this

premise, the decision to scrap the earlier test was held to be

invalid. In the present case, the file notings (as set out in the

impugned judgment) clearly indicate the intrinsic compulsions

which prompted the cancellation of the earlier selection

process and issuance of a fresh notification.

11 (2010) 7 SCC 678

16

31. Respondents also argued that the appointments of candidates

to two other posts, namely Junior Assistants and Junior

Linemen undertaken in terms of the earlier recruitment

notification had not been disturbed by the High Court in Writ

Petition No. 26400 of 2015. The distinction between the two

cases is clearly evident. In Writ Petition No.26400 of 2015, the

candidates had already been appointed and their vested rights

were protected by Section 79 of AP Reorganisation Act which

was not available to the respondent-writ petitioners who were

merely in the select list and had not been appointed prior to

bifurcation.

32. High Court turned Section 79 on its head and held the said

provision did not create an embargo on the new State to make

appointment in its services from a select list prepared for the

composite State of Andhra Pradesh. The reasoning of the High

Court flies in face of the fact that a selected candidate does not

have a vested right to appointment and Section 79 cannot be

read as an enabling provision vesting such a right and

encroaching on the appellant’s right to take an independent

decision in light of the altered circumstances to continue with

17 the earlier selection process or to initiate a fresh selection

process.

Conclusion

33. For these reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and

order of the High Court and direct that it shall be open to the

appellant-Transco to proceed to make appointments in terms

of the subsequent notification dated 28.12.2017 in accordance

with law. Consequently, Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos.11149,

11170 & 11481 of 2020 are allowed.

34. In light of our decision in the aforesaid civil appeals, Civil

Appeal @ SLP(C) No.761/2021 by AP-Transco is also allowed.

Writ Petition No. 26267/2018 filed by intervenors in IA No.

94627/2022, pending before High Court shall also be disposed

of in light of observations made herein.

35. Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No.12599/2020 has been preferred by

candidates who failed to qualify the written examination held

pursuant to Notification No. 05/2017 issued by TS-Transco.

They had sought review of the common judgement and order

in Writ Petition No.6165 of 2018 claiming that the number of

seats declared in the earlier cancelled notification be clubbed

with the vacancies declared in the subsequent notification. As

18 we have held the earlier notification pertaining to the

composite State of Andhra Pradesh was validly cancelled, this

appeal is dismissed.

36. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

….……………..….……………………….J. (PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)

….……………………..………………….J. (JOYMALYA BAGCHI)

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 22, 2025.

19