Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Supreme Court
Courts Cannot Second Guess The Manner In Which Authority Would Address Legitimate Expectation Issue: Supreme Court In Telangana TS-Transco Recruitment Case
|The Supreme Court set aside the Telangana High Court’s directions and held that once an authority has considered candidates’ legitimate expectations and granted relief, the adequacy of such relief is not amenable to judicial review.
The Supreme Court has held that a court exercising judicial review cannot reassess the sufficiency of relief granted by an authority when legitimate expectations have been considered in the decision-making process.
The Apex Court was hearing appeals filed by the Transmission Corporation of Telangana State Limited (TS Transco) regarding recruitment to Sub-Engineer (Electrical) posts.
The Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed:
“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.”
Senior Advocate Gourab Banerji appeared for the appellants (TS Transco), and Senior Advocate B. Adinarayana Rao appeared for the respondent writ petitioners.
Background
In 2011, the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation (AP Transco) notified recruitment for Sub Engineer (Electrical) posts across six zones of the then composite State. The selection matrix allotted 55 marks to the written test and 45 marks to the in-service experience. This weightage was challenged, leading to modification of the scheme by the High Court and a direction to hold a fresh written examination.
On 02 June 2014, Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated, and TS Transco was incorporated for the newly formed State of Telangana. After review proceedings, the High Court clarified that there was no mandamus to proceed with the earlier selection. TS Transco thereafter cancelled the pre-bifurcation recruitment and issued a fresh notification for Sub Engineer (Electrical) posts. To address the legitimate expectations of candidates from the prior process, the upper age limit was extended to 44 years.
The Telangana High Court, however, set aside the fresh recruitment notification, holding that the decision lacked proper justification and that appointments could have been made from the existing select list since several recruitment zones already fell within Telangana.
Court’s Observations
Disagreeing with the observations made by the Telanagan High Court, the Supreme Court noted that inclusion in a select list does not confer a vested right to appointment and that a decision not to fill vacancies must be bona fide and supported by appropriate reasons.
The Bench remarked that TS Transco took a policy decision to cancel the earlier process and initiate a fresh recruitment having due to delays occasioned by litigation over the weightage scheme, the bifurcation of the State, and the High Court’s clarification through a previous order that there was no mandate to proceed under the notifications that had been issued earlier.
Rejecting the view that appointments could simply be culled out zone-wise from the pre-bifurcation select list, the Bench noted that the 2017 notification reorganised Telangana into two zones, increased the total posts, and altered the local reservation ratio. These changes meant the fresh recruitment could not be treated as a continuation of the old process.
The Bench further remarked that TS Transco had considered the issue and accommodated candidates by granting age relaxation to enable participation in the new selection. Once such consideration is evident, judicial review does not extend to second-guessing the sufficiency of the accommodation.
Conclusion
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the Telangana High Court’s directions and upheld TS-Transco’s authority to proceed with recruitment under the fresh notification.
“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”, the Bench remarked.
The appeals filed by TS-Transco were allowed, and the appeal filed by unsuccessful candidates seeking to merge earlier vacancies with the new notification was dismissed.
Cause Title: The Transmission Corporation of Telangana State Limited & ANR. VERSUS Chukkala Kranthi Kiran & ORS. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1029).
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate Gourab Banerji
Respondents: Senior Advocate B. Adinarayana Rao