Holding

The Court held that the selected candidates have no vested right to appointment and the authority may lawfully cancel the earlier selection and initiate a fresh recruitment, provided it acts bona‑fide, considers legitimate expectations, and Section 79 does not impede such a policy decision.

Summary

The case concerned the recruitment of Sub‑Engineers by the erstwhile AP‑Transco in 2011‑12 and the subsequent cancellation of that process by the newly formed TS‑Transco after the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners, who had been selected under the earlier notifications, challenged TS‑Transco’s 2017 notifications that scrapped the old selection and started a fresh recruitment drive. The High Court set aside the cancellation and ordered appointments under the old list, holding the decision unsustainable. The Supreme Court examined the legitimate‑expectation doctrine, the absence of a vested right to appointment, and the scope of Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. It concluded that the authority could lawfully cancel the earlier process and conduct a new one, provided it acted bona‑fide and considered candidates’ expectations, and that Section 79 does not restrict such policy decisions. Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court order and allowed the appeals, directing TS‑Transco to proceed with appointments under the 2017 notification.

Issues considered

Whether candidates selected under the 2011‑12 AP‑Transco notifications have a vested right to appointment.
Whether the cancellation of the earlier selection process and issuance of a fresh recruitment notification by TS‑Transco is lawful and sustainable.
Whether Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, bars the new state from appointing from the earlier select list.
Whether the High Court erred in directing continuation of the earlier selection process and in its interpretation of the review order.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014s. 79

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court setting aside notification cancelling the earlier notifications issued by erstwhile Transmission Corporation of Andhra as unsustainable, quashing the subsequent notification 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

Subjects

Bifurcation of State of Andhra PradeshSelection processPost-bifurcation requirementsMandamusPolicy decisionNew recruitment processLegitimate expectationJudicial reviewVested right to appointmentFile notingsRecruitment notification

Judgment

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1413 : 2025 INSC 1029

The Transmission Corporation of Telangana State
Limited & Anr.
v.
Chukkala Kranthi Kiran & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 11003 of 2025)
22 August 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and
Joymalya Bagchi,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the judgment and order passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court setting aside notification cancelling
the earlier notifications issued by erstwhile Transmission Corporation
of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. in 2011-12 as unsustainable, quashing the
subsequent notification 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.

Headnotes†
Service Law – Recruitment – Selection process for the post of
Sub Engineer (Electrical) – AP-Transco issued notification for
recruitment of Sub-Engineers in composite State of Andhra
Pradesh – Recruitment notification challenged – Meanwhile,
bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh and
incorporation of the appellant no.1, for State of Telangana –
Review petitions filed challenging the orders pertaining to
the selection process – High Court ordered the appellant
no.1 to take independent decision whether to continue or
initiate fresh selection process, and appellant no.1 cancelled
the earlier selection process and initiated new recruitment
drive – Challenge to – Division Bench of High Court quashed
subsequent notifications issued by appellant no. 1 to conduct
fresh examinations and directed to appoint respondent-
writ petitioners who were selected pursuant to the earlier
notifications – Correctness:

* Author
1414 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Held: 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 –
Furthermore, the 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 – s.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 the earlier selection process or to initiate a fresh
selection process – Decision by the Division Bench to scrap
the earlier selection process and undertake a new recruitment
exercise was an unreasonable one, is erroneous and based on
an incorrect appreciation of the file notings and the conclusion
arrived thereto – Appellant no.1 took a policy decision to cancel
the earlier selection process and initiate a new one considering
the delay in conclusion of the selection process under the 2011-
2012 notifications, bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh,
and the order passed in review petition wherein the High Court
clarified there is no mandamus to proceed with the said selection
process – Liberty was given by the High Court in review petition
to take an independent decision whether to continue or initiate
a fresh selection process, appellant no.1 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 – High Court incorrectly held appellant no.1 had
cancelled the earlier selection process by treating order 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 – It cannot be said that appellant no.1 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
availed of such opportunity and participated in the new recruitment
process – Thus, the impugned judgment and order set aside –
Appellant no.1 to proceed to make appointments in terms of the
subsequent notification in accordance with law – Andhra Pradesh
Reorganisation Act, 2014 – s.79. [Paras 20-24, 26, 28-33]
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1415

The Transmission Corporation of Telangana State Limited & Anr. v.
Chukkala Kranthi Kiran & Ors.

Case Law Cited
East Coast Railway v. Mahadeva Apparao [2010] 7 SCR 908 :
(2010) 7 SCC 678 – distinguished.
A P Transmission Corp. Ltd v. Kalabandi Prasad and Ors., SLP(C)
CC No. 20284 of 2014; Shankarshan Dash v. Union of India
[1991] 2 SCR 567 : (1991) 3 SCC 47 – referred to.

List of Acts
Andhra Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2014.

List of Keywords
Bifurcation of State of Andhra Pradesh; Selection process;
Post-bifurcation requirements; Mandamus; Policy decision; New
recruitment process; Legitimate expectation; Judicial review; Vested
right to appointment; File notings; Recruitment notification.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11003
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2020 of the High
Court for The State of Telangana at Hyderabad in WP No. 6165
of 2018
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 11004, 11005, 11006, and 11007 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Satyam Reddy Sarasani, Sr. Adv., Ajay Kumar Talesara, Ms. Sri
Ruma Sarasani, Vibhav Mishra, Jamshed Bey, Mudit Talesara,
Samarth Talesara, D. Abhinav Rao, Ms. Prerna Singh, Guntur
Pramod Kumar, Dhananjay Dutt Shrimali, Bp Naidu, Sravan Kumar
Karanam.
Advs. for the Respondents:
B Adinarayana Rao, Gourab Banerji, Sr. Advs., Goli Rama Krishna,
Sumanth Nookala, P.V. Krishnaih, Krishna Kumar Singh, Sravan
Kumar Karanam, Venkata Supreeth, Kumar Abhishek, Sadineni
Ravi Kumar.
1416 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. Leave Granted.
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.
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.

1 ‘TS-Transco’ for short.
2 ‘AP-Transco’ for short.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1417

The Transmission Corporation of Telangana State Limited & Anr. v.
Chukkala Kranthi Kiran & Ors.

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.
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.”
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:

3 In Writ Appeal No.110 of 2014 and Batch.
4 SLP(C) CC No. 20284 of 2014.
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.
7 Review W.A.M.P. No. 4180 of 2017 in W.A.No.110 of 2014
1418 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“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 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.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1419

The Transmission Corporation of Telangana State Limited & Anr. v.
Chukkala Kranthi Kiran & Ors.

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 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
1420 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1421

The Transmission Corporation of Telangana State Limited & Anr. v.
Chukkala Kranthi Kiran & Ors.

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 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 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
1422 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 :
“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

8 Shankarshan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1423

The Transmission Corporation of Telangana State Limited & Anr. v.
Chukkala Kranthi Kiran & Ors.

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 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 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.

9 Rev. W.A.M.P No. 4180 of 2014 and Batch.
1424 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.
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 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

10 Notification No. 05/2017 dt. 28.12.2017 Part VIII Procedure for Selection, Note (a).
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1425

The Transmission Corporation of Telangana State Limited & Anr. v.
Chukkala Kranthi Kiran & Ors.

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 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.
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

11 (2010) 7 SCC 678
1426 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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 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.

Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain