LexTHE TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF TELANGANA STATE LIMITED & ANR. versus CHUKKALA KRANTHI KIRAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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 accordan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.