Summary and Analysis of The Transmission Corporation of Telangana State Limited & Anr vs Chukkala Kranthi Kiran & Ors
1. Heading of the Judgment
The Transmission Corporation of Telangana State Limited & Anr. vs. Chukkala Kranthi Kiran & Ors. (2025 INSC 1029)
Decided on: August 22, 2025
Coram: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Topic: The validity of cancelling a pre-existing recruitment process by a newly formed state corporation after the bifurcation of a state, and the rights of candidates on a select list.
Citation: The Transmission Corporation of Telangana State Limited & Anr. vs. Chukkala Kranthi Kiran & Ors., (2025) INSC 1029
2. Related Laws and Legal Principles
The judgment interprets and applies the following legal principles:
Constitutional Doctrine of Equality (Article 14): Requires state action to be non-arbitrary and based on intelligible differentia.
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: While not a right in itself, it mandates that administrative decisions affecting people's expectations must be fair and reasonable.
No Vested Right to Appointment: A well-established principle that being on a select list does not confer an absolute right to be appointed. The employer has the discretion not to make appointments from the list, provided the decision is bona fide and based on cogent reasons. (Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47)
Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014: The central legislation that bifurcated the composite state of Andhra Pradesh into the states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Origin: Appeals against a common judgment of the Telangana High Court.
Original Case: Writ petitions filed by candidates who were selected in a recruitment process initiated in 2011-12 by the erstwhile Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (AP-Transco) for the post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical).
The Recruitment Process: AP-Transco issued notifications in 2011-12 to fill 339 posts across six zones in the undivided state. The process was marred by litigation over the marks weightage given to in-service candidates, leading to a directive for a fresh written exam.
The Game-Changer: Before the process could conclude, the state of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated on June 2, 2014, under the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014. Consequently, AP-Transco's operations were restricted to the new state of Andhra Pradesh, and a new entity, the Transmission Corporation of Telangana State (TS-Transco), was formed for Telangana.
The Impugned Decision: In December 2017, TS-Transco issued a notification cancelling the old 2011-12 recruitment process and initiated a fresh process to fill 174 posts based on the new state's requirements.
High Court Outcome: The High Court quashed TS-Transco's decision, calling it "arbitrary." It directed TS-Transco to appoint the writ petitioners from the old select list.
Appeal to Supreme Court: TS-Transco and AP-Transco appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's order.
4. Explanation of the Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and upholding TS-Transco's right to cancel the old process and start afresh.
Part I: The Supreme Court's Reasoning
The Court systematically dismantled the High Court's reasoning, highlighting several key factors that made TS-Transco's decision rational, bona fide, and necessary:
Impact of Bifurcation: The Court emphasized that the bifurcation of the state was not a minor event but a fundamental restructuring. TS-Transco was a new entity with a new jurisdiction (only Telangana) and had to reassess its own human resource needs independently. The old process was designed for the needs of a much larger, composite state.
Changed Requirements: The Court noted material changes between the old and new processes:
Number of Posts: The old process for Telangana zones aimed to fill 133 posts. The new process for the state of Telangana aimed to fill 174 posts.
Zonal Distribution: The old state had 6 zones (3 in Telangana). The new state of Telangana was divided into only 2 zones (North and South), with a completely new district composition.
Reservation Policy: The local reservation ratio changed from 80:20 in the old notification to 70:30 in the new one.No Vested Right: The Court reaffirmed the principle from Shankarsan Dash that candidates on a select list have no vested right to appointment. The employer has the discretion to cancel the process, provided the decision is not arbitrary.
Decision was Bona Fide: The Court examined the file notings and found that TS-Transco's decision was based on cogent reasons: the long delay due to litigation, the supervening event of state bifurcation, and the liberty granted by the High Court itself in its order dated 13.10.2017, which clarified that there was no mandamus to continue the old process.
Legitimate Expectation was Honored: The Court held that TS-Transco did indeed honor the "legitimate expectation" of the old candidates. It did so by providing age relaxation up to 44 years in the new notification, allowing them a fair chance to participate in the fresh process. The Court ruled that it is not for the judiciary to second-guess the "sufficiency" of this accommodation; the fact that it was provided and most writ petitioners availed of it showed the decision was fair.
Part II: Final Outcome and Order
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in substituting its own judgment for the policy decision of TS-Transco.
The decision to cancel the old process and start a new one was found to be rational, based on valid grounds, and not arbitrary.
Result: The Supreme Court:
Set aside the impugned judgment of the Telangana High Court.
Allowed TS-Transco and AP-Transco's appeals.
Upheld the validity of TS-Transco's notification cancelling the 2011-12 process and its new notification dated 28.12.2017 for fresh recruitment.
Dismissed a connected appeal by some unsuccessful candidates from the new process.
This judgment reinforces the autonomy of state instruments to make recruitment decisions based on changed administrative and territorial realities. It strongly upholds the principle that merely being placed on a select list does not create an indefeasible right to a job, especially when a supervening event like state reorganization fundamentally alters the landscape in which the original recruitment was conceived.