Transmission Corporation Of Telangana State Limited vs Chukkala Kranthi Kiran

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1253

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.
The Transmission Corporation Of Telangana State Limited & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Chukkala Kranthi Kiran & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11003 of 2025 (@ SLP (C) No. 11149/2020) With C.A. No 11004 of 2025 (@ SLP(C) No. 11481/2020), C.A. No. 11005 of 2025 (@ SLP(C) No. 11170/2020), C.A. No. 11006 of 2025 (@ SLP(C) No. 12599/2020), C.A. No. 11007 of 2025 (@ SLP(C) No. 761/2021)
Decided On : 22-08-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, AOR Mr. S. Satyam Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vibhav Mishra, Adv. Ms. S. Sri Ruma, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Talesara, AOR Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sumanth Nookala, AOR Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Yashaswi Sk Chocksey, Adv. Mr. Jatinder Bir Singh, Adv. Mr. Gaurab Banerjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR Mr. Kumar Nikhil, Adv. Mr. Supreet, Adv. Mr. Sadineni Ravi Kumar, AOR

Headnote:(A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Recruitment Notifications - The Transmission Corporation of Telangana State Limited's cancellation of previous recruitment notifications issued by the erstwhile AP-Transco was held unsustainable by the High Court, directing adherence to earlier selection processes for Sub-Engineers. (Paras 77, 78, 80)

(B) Judicial Review - The decision to scrap earlier selections must be based on valid reasons and cannot be arbitrary; candidates do not have a vested right to appointment but do have legitimate expectations. (Paras 21, 28)

Facts of the case:
The case involves the challenge against TS-Transco's decision to cancel earlier recruitment notifications post bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, stating that new notifications should consider prior selections and legitimate candidate expectations.

Findings of Court:
The High Court's set-aside of TS-Transco's decision was reversed, mandating continuation of the earlier selection processes and issuing appointment letters to qualified candidates.

Issues: The central issues addressed include whether prior notifications have lapsed and the legitimacy of new recruitment processes.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the earlier notifications had not lapsed without just cause, emphasizing that the employer's decisions must be based on reasonable assessments rather than arbitrary choices.

Result: The court allowed the civil appeals and directed the continuance of the recruitment process.

JUDGMENT :

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. 1st Appellant- Transmission Corporation of Telangana State Ltd.¹[‘TS-Transco’ for short] 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[‘AP-Transco’ for short.] 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 SubEngineer (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.

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[In Writ Appeal No.110 of 2014 and Batch] 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[SLP(C) CC No. 20284 of 2014.]

7. Meanwhile, on 02.06.2014 composite State of Andhra Pradesh was re-organized in terms of Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014⁵[Hereinafter, AP Reorganisation Act]. 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[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.] dated 26.12.2014 the Division Bench disposed of the review petitions observing as follows:

They shall certainly have the liberty to take up the selection process in accordance with law and their present area of operation.”

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[Review W.A.M.P. No. 4180 of 2017 in W.A.No.110 of 2014.] dated 13.10.2017 clarified as follows: