Supreme Court Upholds TS-Transco’s Fresh Recruitment Notification | Cancelling 2011–12 AP-Transco Selection Process Not Arbitrary, Candidates Had No Vested Right to Appointment
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that the decision of the Transmission Corporation of Telangana State Limited to cancel the earlier recruitment process and issue a fresh notification for the appointment of Sub-Engineers (Electrical) was valid. The Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, which had declared the cancellation as unsustainable and directed appointments under the earlier process. The Supreme Court directed that it shall be open to the appellant to proceed with appointments in terms of the subsequent notification issued in 2017.
The case arose from a recruitment process initiated in December 2011 by the erstwhile Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (AP-Transco) for 339 Sub-Engineer (Electrical) posts across six zones of the then undivided Andhra Pradesh. The selection criteria included 55 marks for a written examination and 45 marks for in-service experience of contractual candidates. This weightage was challenged before the High Court, where a Single Judge restricted it to 20 percent and directed allocation of two marks for every completed year of service. The Division Bench upheld this arrangement and further directed AP-Transco to conduct a fresh examination for 80 marks. AP-Transco unsuccessfully challenged this directive before the Supreme Court.
On June 2, 2014, the State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, creating the new State of Telangana and the Transmission Corporation of Telangana State Limited (TS-Transco). Following bifurcation, distribution companies sought review of the High Court’s earlier orders citing impracticality in conducting examinations based on the old notifications. By order dated December 26, 2014, the Division Bench held that post-bifurcation, the companies could not be compelled to continue the earlier selection and could undertake fresh processes in accordance with law.
Certain candidates also sought review of directions requiring fresh examinations. On October 13, 2017, the Division Bench clarified that its order should not be understood as a mandate requiring continuation of the earlier notifications. Instead, the corporations were permitted to take independent decisions on whether to proceed with or cancel earlier recruitment.
TS-Transco thereafter issued a notification on December 11, 2017, cancelling the earlier recruitment notifications of 2011-12 and declaring them lapsed. On December 28, 2017, a fresh notification was issued for recruitment of 174 Sub-Engineers (Electrical) in Telangana. To address the legitimate expectations of candidates from the earlier process, the age limit was extended to 44 years. Many writ petitioners participated in the new recruitment and were selected.
Respondents challenged both the cancellation notification of December 11, 2017, and the subsequent recruitment notification dated December 28, 2017, before the High Court of Telangana. The High Court quashed both notifications, held the cancellation unsustainable, and directed TS-Transco to continue the process from the earlier notifications of 2011-12 and issue appointment letters accordingly.
The High Court framed three issues: whether candidates qualified under the earlier process were entitled to appointment, whether the cancellation notification was valid, and whether the new recruitment notification was sustainable. It concluded that the cancellation was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, directing continuation of the old process for Sub-Engineer (Electrical) posts.
Aggrieved, TS-Transco challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, contending that the bifurcation of the State, the delay in the selection due to litigation, and the High Court’s clarification of 2017 justified cancellation. Respondents argued that they had a legitimate expectation of appointment and that cancellation was arbitrary. They further argued that similar appointments of Junior Assistants and Junior Linemen under the earlier recruitment had not been disturbed.
The Supreme Court observed that while candidates in a select list do not have a vested right to appointment, any decision not to fill vacancies must be bona fide and reasonable. The Court noted: “Any decision not to fill up vacancies from a select list must be taken bona fide and for appropriate reasons.” The Court held that TS-Transco’s decision was supported by three factors: pending litigation and delay in the earlier process, bifurcation of the State, and the liberty granted by the High Court in 2017 to take an independent decision.
The Court stated: “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.” It further observed: “Post-bifurcation, TS-Transco was incorporated for the State of Telangana. Taking 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.”
The Court rejected the High Court’s reasoning that TS-Transco had cancelled the earlier process by misinterpreting the 2017 order. The Bench clarified: “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 reassessment of human resource requirements in the new State, justifying a new selection process.”
On the issue of zones, the Court held: “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… 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 State of Andhra Pradesh.”
On legitimate expectation, the Court recorded: “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.” The Bench further stated: “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.”
Distinguishing East Coast Railway v. Mahadeva Apparao (2010) 7 SCC 678, the Court stated that the earlier cancellation was based on intrinsic compulsions, unlike in East Coast where cancellation was speculative.
On the argument regarding appointments of Junior Assistants and Junior Linemen, the Court recorded that Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act protected vested rights of candidates already appointed, which was not applicable to the writ petitioners who were merely in the select list.
The Court concluded: “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.”
The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeals arising from Special Leave Petitions Nos. 11149, 11170, and 11481 of 2020, permitting TS-Transco to proceed with appointments under the December 28, 2017 notification. The Court also allowed Civil Appeal arising from SLP(C) No. 761/2021 filed by AP-Transco, directing that Writ Petition No. 26267 of 2018 pending before the High Court be disposed of in light of its observations.
The Court dismissed Civil Appeal arising from SLP(C) No. 12599 of 2020 filed by unsuccessful candidates in the 2017 examination who sought to club seats from the cancelled notification with the new vacancies. It held: “As we have held the earlier notification pertaining to the composite State of Andhra Pradesh was validly cancelled, this appeal is dismissed.”
The Bench concluded by ordering: “Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, AOR; Mr. S. Satyam Reddy, Senior Advocate; Mr. Vibhav Mishra, Advocate; Ms. S. Sri Ruma, Advocate; Mr. Ajay Kumar Talesara, AOR; Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR; Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sumanth Nookala, AOR; Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR; Mr. Yashaswi Sk Chocksey, Advocate; Mr. Jatinder Bir Singh, Advocate; Mr. Gaurab Banerjee, Senior Advocate; Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR; Mr. Kumar Nikhil, Advocate; Mr. Supreet, Advocate; Mr. Sadineni Ravi Kumar, AOR.
Case Title: The Transmission Corporation of Telangana State Limited & Anr. v. Chukkala Kranthi Kiran & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1029
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. ________/2025 (@ SLP (C) No.11149/2020) and connected matters
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Joymalya Bagchi
