Selection Does Not Ripen Into Appointment—No Vested Right for Aspirants: Supreme Court on Telangana Transco Recruitment:

“Policy Choices After Bifurcation Lie Beyond Judicial Second-Guessing”, Supreme Court overturned a Telangana High Court ruling that had directed the appointment of candidates selected under a 2011–2012 recruitment process conducted by the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Transco.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that the decision of TS-Transco to cancel the old recruitment and issue a fresh notification in 2017 was a valid policy choice, compelled by bifurcation, litigation, and altered administrative needs. The Court ruled that “a select list does not create a vested right to appointment”, and that courts cannot compel an employer to carry forward an outdated recruitment process into a new state structure.

Old Recruitment, Litigation, and Bifurcation

The case stemmed from AP-Transco’s 2011–2012 recruitment notification for 339 Sub-Engineers (Electrical). The process was stalled when litigation erupted over weightage marks for in-service candidates. By the time the courts directed a recalibrated test, the State of Andhra Pradesh had bifurcated (02 June 2014), and TS-Transco was formed as a new entity for Telangana.

In 2017, the High Court clarified that there was no mandamus to continue the earlier process. Acting on this liberty, TS-Transco cancelled the old notifications on 11 December 2017 and issued a fresh recruitment notification on 28 December 2017 for 174 posts, with new zones and revised reservation ratios.

The Telangana High Court held that TS-Transco’s cancellation was arbitrary, set aside the 2017 notification, and directed the corporation to proceed with the old select list. It reasoned that since three of the original six zones fell within Telangana, appointments could still be made from the earlier process.

The Supreme Court found this reasoning deeply flawed.

The Court categorically rejected the High Court’s view, stressing that candidates who figure in a select list do not acquire any enforceable right to appointment. Citing Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, the Court reiterated:

“A selected candidate does not have a vested right to appointment. Section 79 of the Reorganisation Act protects vested rights of appointees, not the mere expectations of those in a select list.”

The Bench noted that appointments already made to posts such as Junior Assistants and Junior Linemen were protected because they had crystallised into vested rights before bifurcation, but those still in the pipeline had no such protection.

Restructuring Meant No Continuity

The Court pointed out that the fresh recruitment was not, and could not be, a continuation of the old one. The new notification reorganised Telangana into two zones—North and South, replacing the earlier three zones. The number of posts rose from 133 (for Telangana zones) to 174, and the reservation ratio shifted from 80:20 to 70:30.

“Given this situation, the fresh recruitment drive by no stretch of imagination can be construed as a continuation of the earlier recruitment process.”

Legitimate Expectation vs. Enforceable Right

The writ petitioners argued that even if no vested right existed, their legitimate expectation of appointment should be recognised. The Court acknowledged this expectation but upheld TS-Transco’s accommodation:

“Legitimate expectation was duly considered by giving age relaxation so that no candidate was unjustly denied participation in the new process. Judicial review cannot sit in judgment over the sufficiency of such accommodation.”

The Court contrasted the case with East Coast Railway v. Mahadeva Apparao, where cancellation was struck down as speculative. Here, the cancellation was driven by real compulsions—litigation, bifurcation, and altered administrative requirements.

Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and upheld TS-Transco’s 2017 notification. It closed with a reaffirmation of first principles in service law:

“The earlier notification pertaining to the composite State of Andhra Pradesh was validly cancelled. A select list does not create a vested right to appointment. Section 79 protects appointees, not aspirants.”

The ruling clears the path for TS-Transco to proceed with its fresh recruitment drive and cements the principle that administrative restructuring after bifurcation cannot be judicially rolled back on the plea of expectations by unappointed candidates.