The Transmission Corporation Of Telangana State Limited vs. Chukkala Kranthi Kiran

REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1029

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)

J U D G M E N T

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. Leave Granted.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2025.08.22
19:04:26 IST
Reason:

1


st
2. 1 Appellant- Transmission Corporation of Telangana State
1
Ltd. 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
2
Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. in 2011-12 as
unsustainable, quashing the subsequent notification no.
st
05/2017 dated 28.12.2017 issued by 1 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.
3
6. The matter was carried in appeal 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
4
Apex Court .

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
5
Act, 2014 . 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
6
per the earlier notifications. By order 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
7
Bench by order 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.”

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.
st
17. Pursuant to such clarification, the 1 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
8
must be taken bona fide and for appropriate reasons.
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,
9
(iii) Order dated 13.10.2017 passed in review petition
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
10
notification) .

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
11
Apparao 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