LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

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

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 1029Decided 22 Aug 2025
C.A. No.-011003-011003 - 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 11149/2020, with connected appeals from SLP (C) Nos. 11481/2020, 11170/2020, 12599/2020 and 761/2021)
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Background

In 2011-12, the erstwhile AP-Transco (the composite Andhra Pradesh's transmission utility) issued notifications to recruit 339 Sub-Engineers. Litigation over marks-weightage for in-service candidates delayed the selection process for years. In the meantime, in June 2014, Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated and Telangana State Transmission Corporation (TS-Transco) was carved out as a separate entity for the new State. After the High Court clarified it was not mandating continuation of the old selection process, TS-Transco cancelled the pre-2014 recruitment notifications in December 2017 and issued a fresh notification for 174 Sub-Engineer posts reorganized into new zones, with an age-relaxation for candidates who had participated earlier. The candidates who had qualified under the original 2011-12 process challenged the cancellation; the Telangana High Court sided with them, quashed the cancellation, and directed TS-Transco to appoint them from the old select list, prompting this appeal.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held the High Court's finding, that TS-Transco's cancellation was arbitrary, was based on a misreading of the internal file notings, which in fact showed legitimate, bona fide reasons: prolonged litigation delay, the State's bifurcation creating an entirely new administrative entity, and a genuine reassessment of manpower needs (the new zonal structure, altered vacancy numbers, and changed local-reservation ratios meant the new recruitment could not be treated as a mere continuation of the old one). The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that selected candidates on a select list have no vested right to appointment (Shankarshan Dash v. Union of India), and that an employer's decision not to fill vacancies from an old list need only be bona fide, not judicially second-guessed for "sufficiency." It also held Section 79 of the AP Reorganisation Act protected only candidates already appointed before bifurcation, not those merely on a select list. Since TS-Transco had already addressed candidates' legitimate expectations by granting age relaxation (which all the respondents used to reapply), the cancellation and fresh recruitment were upheld, and the High Court's judgment was set aside.

Lesson Learnt

Being on a government job select list creates no automatic right to appointment; an employer can validly cancel a stalled selection process and start afresh when genuine, bona-fide circumstances change (like a State's reorganization altering administrative structure and needs), especially where affected candidates are given a fair chance to reapply, such as through age relaxation.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case