Telangana High Court
Telangana State Power Generation ... vs T. Saritha on 26 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL Nos.294, 297, 301 and 334 of 2025
DATE: 26.03.2026
W.A.No.294 of 2025
Between:
Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Limited,
Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director,
Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and another
....Appellants
And
T.Saritha and 13 others
....Respondents
W.A.No.297 of 2025
Between:
Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Limited,
Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director,
Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and another
....Appellants
And
Kore Praveen Kumar
....Respondent
W.A.No.301 of 2025
Between:
Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Limited,
Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director,
Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and another
....Appellants
And
Mundra Tejaswinin
....Respondent
2
W.A.No.334 of 2025
Between:
Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Limited,
Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director,
Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and another
....Appellants
And
Bathu Pavan Kumar
....Respondent
COMMON JUDGMENT
Since the issues that arise in the above writ appeals are integrally one and the same, the writ appeals are being disposed of by this Common Judgment.
2. These four writ appeals are preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the common order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.42734 & 45061 of 2017 and 18962 & 20048 of 2018. By the said order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and directed the appellants- Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Limited (TSGENCO) (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') to consider the candidature of the writ petitioners (respondents herein) for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) against 42 unfilled notified posts from the selection process of the year 2015.
3
3. Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K.G.Ravikanth, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1,2,7,8 and 9 in W.A.No.294 of 2025 and for respondent in W.A.No.334 of 2025 and Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for respondent in W.A.No.297 of 2025.
Factual Matrix (in brief)
4. The appellants-Corporation issued Notification No.02/CGM (Adm. IS & ERP), dated 23.09.2015, inviting applications for recruitment to 856 posts of Assistant Engineers in various disciplines, including Electrical, Mechanical, Electronics and Civil, keeping in view both the existing vacancies as well as anticipated requirements in upcoming projects such as KTPS-VII Stage, Bhadradri Thermal Power Station (BTPS), Yadadri Thermal Power Station (YTPS-A & YTPS-B), and the O&M Contract at Jaipur M/s.Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL). The notification specifically stipulated, under the "Important Note" at Clause (3), that the notified vacancies were subject to variation depending upon necessity and were liable to be filled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force, duly following the rule of reservation.
5. The written examination pursuant to the said notification was conducted on 14.11.2015. Thereafter, candidates were 4 shortlisted in the ratio of 1:1 based on merit, and upon verification of original certificates, 690 candidates were ultimately issued appointment orders on 17.02.2016.
6. It is further borne out from the record that, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Munja Praveen v. State of Telangana 1, as also the decision rendered in SLP (C) Nos.36057-36059 of 2016 concerning recruitment in power utilities, the appellants decided to fill up leftover vacancies by operating the merit list downward. Accordingly, further certificate verification was conducted during October, 2017, and a second phase of selection was undertaken, pursuant to which 73 candidates in the Electrical stream were issued appointment orders on 13.11.2017. Even after the said exercise, 42 posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), out of the total notified posts in that stream, remained unfilled.
7. The respondents herein, who were unsuccessful candidates in the said selection process, submitted representations seeking consideration for appointment against the said unfilled posts by further operation of the merit list. The said representations came to be rejected by the appellants vide letter dated 04.12.2017, pursuant to a conscious decision taken by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 09.11.2017. The Board had decided not to 1 (2017) 14 SCC 797 5 fill the remaining 42 posts for the reasons recorded, which are extracted hereunder:
TSGENCO has issued a Notification No.02/CGM(Adm, IS&ERP) dt 23.09.2015 for filling up by direct recruitment of 856 posts including posts sanctioned for the upcoming new projects i.e KTPS VII Stage-55 Nos, Bhadradri Thermal Power Station (BTPS)-116 Nos, Yadadri Thermal Power Station (YTPS-A)-116 Nos, Yadadri TPS-B-166Nos and O&M Contract of Jaipur (SCCL)-280 Nos envisaging the completion of BTPS and KTPS-VII Projects and commencement of construction activities of YTPS A within two years.
Subsequently, construction works of upcoming new projects i.e., BTPS, YTPS-A, YTPS-B were delayed as the necessary clearances were not received in time from the concerned competent authorities for commencement of the works.
Subsequent to the issuance of Notification, the O&M Contract of 2X600 MW Jaipur plant of M/s SCCL did not materialize, as it was awarded to the other Company Inspite of non-materialization of the Jaipur/O&M of SCCL, Recruitment process for filling up all the 856 Notified Posts which included 280 posts meant for O&M of SCCL Project, was carried out and appointment orders were issued to all the 690 candidates who have attended for certificate Verification. Subsequently, the 166 posts which fell vacant due to non-attending of selected candidates for certificate verification was sought to be filled up through Notice dt 05.10.2017. Thus more posts than those Immediate requirement were filled up duly following orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The Unit III of KTPS(O&M) is already retired and the other 3 units of the station as well as RTS-B are going to be retired on completion of KTPS-VII (1x800 MW) project. Thus the engineers displaced form the retired units can be utilised at the new projects such as TPS-VII and BTPS (4x270 MW) during construction phase, including those recruited against the posts envisaged for Jaipur/O&M of Singareni Collaries Company Limited
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection, the respondents herein instituted separate writ petitions, including W.P.Nos.42734 of 2017, 45061 of 2017, 20048 of 2018 and 18962 of 2018, inter alia seeking a direction to the appellants to fill up the unfilled posts by continuing the selection process. The learned Single Judge, by a common order dated 04.10.2024, allowed the said writ petitions, 6 primarily on the premise that the appellants themselves had issued a subsequent Notification No.01/2023, dated 04.10.2023, notifying 42 vacancies in the Electrical branch, which were treated as having been carried forward from the earlier 2015 recruitment process. On that basis, the learned Single Judge held that the earlier decision of the appellants not to fill up the posts was unsustainable and directed consideration of the writ petitioners for appointment against the said vacancies.
9. Aggrieved by the common order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants-Corporation have preferred the present batch of writ appeals.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellants-Corporation
10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants- Corporation, advanced submissions assailing the impugned common order dated 04.10.2024 as under:
i) That the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the explicit condition contained in the recruitment notification itself, particularly the "Important Note" under Clause (3), which provides that the notified vacancies are subject to variation depending upon necessity. That the recruitment undertaken pursuant to Notification dated 23.09.2015 was not for existing vacancies but was a projection based on future projects, which did not materialize.7
ii) That owing to supervening circumstances, namely the non-
award of the SCCL contract to the appellant-Corporation and the delay in execution of the aforesaid projects on account of non-receipt of requisite statutory clearances, the anticipated requirement failed to materialise. It is contended that the decision of the Board of Directors not to proceed further with the filling up of the remaining posts was taken on objective and bona fide considerations and does not suffer from arbitrariness.
iii) Placing reliance on the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India 2, it is contended that mere inclusion of a candidate's name in a select list does not confer any indefeasible or vested right to appointment. It is further submitted that, in the present case, the respondents were not even within the zone of consideration for the second phase of selection and, therefore, cannot assert any enforceable right to seek appointment by compelling the appellants to operate the merit list further.
iv) That it is the sole prerogative of the employer to determine, based on administrative exigencies, functional requirements and financial considerations, as to how many posts are to be filled and at what point of time. The decision taken by the 2 (1991) 3 SCC 47 8 Board of Directors, after due deliberation, to restrict the recruitment process to the second list and not to proceed further, is stated to be a policy decision taken in the interest of the organisation. It is argued that the learned Single Judge erred in substituting such administrative decision with judicial discretion, which is impermissible in law, particularly in matters involving policy and staffing requirements.
v) That the learned Single Judge erred in placing reliance on the Government Memo dated 01.06.2016, which permitted certain other power utilities, namely, Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited (TSTRANSCO), Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TSSPDCL) and Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Company Limited (TSNPDCL), to operate the merit list further on multiple occasions, which was issued having regard to the peculiar circumstances applicable to those entities. It is contended that the same analogy cannot be extended to the appellant-Corporation as a matter of course.
vi) That the respondents were not within the zone of consideration even if the merit list were to be operated further. Learned Senior Counsel drew attention to the tabulated data placed on record in the memorandum of appeal, demonstrating the marks secured, ranks obtained, 9 and the number of candidates standing above the respondents in their respective categories. It is submitted that in view of the large number of more meritorious candidates placed above the respondents-writ petitioners and the limited number of available posts in each category, the respondents would not have been eligible for consideration in any event.
vii) That the Notification No.01/2023, dated 04.10.2023 was issued to meet the then prevailing requirements of the Corporation, which had undergone substantial change over a period of time. The inclusion of 42 posts in the Electrical stream in the said notification does not, in any manner, amount to an admission that such vacancies existed or were required to be filled in the year 2015 and cannot be resurrected or operated after a lapse of several years to fill vacancies arising in a subsequent period.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents-writ petitioners
11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents-writ petitioners supported the common order of the learned Single Judge and has submitted as under:
i) That the appellants-Corporation, having consciously followed the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Munja Praveen (supra 1) and having operated the merit list downward to fill up 73 posts in the second phase of 10 selection, could not have arbitrarily halted the process thereafter, particularly when 42 notified posts admittedly remained unfilled. That similarly placed power utilities, namely TSTRANSCO, TSSPDCL and TSNPDCL, had operated their merit lists on multiple occasions, and the refusal of the appellants-Corporation to adopt a similar course of action results in hostile discrimination and unequal treatment.
ii) That the reasons assigned by the appellant-Corporation for not filling up the remaining 42 posts, namely the non-award of the SCCL contract and the delay in execution of new projects, are not genuine. It is contended that the O&M Contract of Jaipur (SCCL) had been awarded to another entity as early as 08.08.2015, i.e., prior to the issuance of the recruitment notification dated 23.09.2015, and the said fact was well within the knowledge of the appellant-
Corporation. Despite being aware of the same, the Corporation proceeded to notify the posts and conduct the recruitment process.
iii) That the issuance of a subsequent Notification No.01/2023, dated 04.10.2023, clearly demonstrates that the requirement for such posts existed all along. It is contended that it constitutes a clear admission on the part of the appellant- Corporation, thereby rendering the earlier decision of the 11 Board of Directors dated 09.11.2017, untenable and unsustainable in law.
iv) That the respondents, having participated in the selection process pursuant to a valid notification and having secured positions in the merit list, had a reasonable and legitimate expectation of being considered for appointment against the notified vacancies, and the State cannot act in a whimsical or arbitrary manner to defeat this expectation without a cogent and justifiable reason.
12. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the following decisions hereunder:
i. R.S.Mittal v. Union of India 3 ii. Rajeev Tiwari v. State of Rajasthan and others 4 iii. Dinesh Chandra Pandey v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and another 5 iv. Manoj Manu and another v. Union of India and others 6 v. Munja Parveen (supra 1) vi. Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and others v. South East Central Railway and others 7 vii. Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board and another viii. Narimetla Vamshi and others 8 ix. Union of India v. Uzair Imran and others 9
13. We have taken note of the respective submissions advanced and the material on record including the merit lists, the Board resolution, and the notification conditions. 3 1995 Supp (2) SCC 230 4 (2008) 7 SLR 100 (DB) = 2008 SCC OnLine Raj 165 5 (2010) 11 SCC 500 6 (2013) 12 SCC 171 7 (2019) 12 SCC 798 8 Civil Appeal No.4735 of 2022 dated 23.11.2022 9 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1308 12 Consideration by this Court
14. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that the recruitment process emanates from Notification dated 23.09.2015, which forms the very foundation of the claims of the parties. A perusal of the said notification would disclose that it contained a specific and unambiguous condition, under the "Important Note" at Clause (3), to the following effect:
The vacancies are subject to variation based on the necessity and shall be filled-up as per the Rules & Regulations in vogue, duly following the Rule of Reservation.
15. It is to be noted that the above condition is not a mere formal clause, but a substantive condition governing the entire recruitment process. All candidates, including the respondents herein, participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the said condition. The clause expressly reserves to the appellant- Corporation the discretion to vary the number of posts to be filled, depending upon its operational and administrative requirements prevailing at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the respondents cannot, at this stage, seek to enforce a right contrary to the very terms of the notification.
16. It is apposite to reiterate the settled legal position that mere participation in a selection process does not confer upon a candidate any indefeasible right to appointment. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash (supra 13
2) has categorically held that even a candidate whose name finds place in the select list does not acquire a vested right to be appointed, and that the State is under no legal obligation to fill up all or any of the vacancies, so long as the decision not to fill such vacancies is founded on bona fide and justifiable reasons.
17. The material on record further demonstrates that the anticipated requirement for filling all the notified posts did not materialize. It is not in dispute that the O&M Contract relating to the Jaipur Plant of SCCL, which constituted a substantial component of the projected vacancies, was ultimately awarded to a third party. Though it is contended on behalf of the respondents that such development had occurred prior to the issuance of the notification, we are unable to accept the submission that the same vitiates the subsequent decision of the appellants. On the contrary, the said circumstance only underscores the contingent and conditional nature of the notification. The recruitment was premised not merely on existing vacancies, but also on projected requirements, and once such projections failed to materialise, the appellant-Corporation was well within its administrative domain to reassess and recalibrate its manpower needs. Therefore, the decision not to fill such posts cannot be said to be arbitrary or lacking in bona fides.
18. Further, the delay in execution and commissioning of the new thermal projects, namely BTPS and YTPS (A & B), on account 14 of non-receipt of statutory and environmental clearances, are matters of administrative record. The Board of Directors, in its meeting held on 09.11.2017, took a conscious decision that the remaining 42 posts were not immediately required. Such a decision, taken by an expert body charged with the administration and functioning of the Corporation, is essentially a matter of policy and managerial discretion. In exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit in appeal over such administrative decisions, nor is it within the province of the Court to substitute its own assessment of manpower requirements in place of that of the competent authority. The writ Court, with due respect, fell in error in undertaking such an exercise.
19. It is also to be noted that the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the subsequent Notification dated 04.10.2023, whereby 42 posts in the Electrical stream were notified, is misplaced. The said notification in 2023 was issued nearly six years after the decision taken by the Board in 2017. The requirement of the Corporation at a later point of time, when projects may have progressed or become operational, cannot be retrospectively imported to invalidate a decision taken on the basis of the prevailing circumstances in the year 2017. Recruitment to public posts is necessarily a dynamic process, contingent upon contemporaneous necessity. The concept of "carry forward" of 15 vacancies, as sought to be canvassed by the respondents, cannot be extended to revive a stale merit list of the year 2015, which has, by efflux of time, lost its relevance and efficacy.
20. The reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Munja Praveen's case (supra 1), also does not advance the case of the respondents. A careful reading of the said judgment would indicate that the Apex Court merely upheld the permissibility of operating the merit list downward in the peculiar facts of that case, having regard to a specific Government Memo dated 01.06.2016. The said judgment does not lay down any inflexible rule mandating that all notified vacancies must necessarily be filled, nor does it sanction indefinite operation of a merit list. In the present case, the appellants have, in fact, acted in conformity with the said judgment by undertaking a second round of selection and issuing appointment orders to 73 candidates. To compel the appellants to continue the process indefinitely would amount to extending the ratio of the said judgment beyond its permissible limits.
21. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are distinguishable for the following reasons:
i) The reliance placed on Rajeev Tiwari (supra 4) is misplaced.
In the said case, the Court interfered on the ground that the State had refused appointment to a selected candidate on vague and unsubstantiated "administrative reasons" and had 16 even declared the post surplus without any statutory basis, thereby rendering the action arbitrary. In the present case, however, the decision not to fill the remaining 42 posts was taken pursuant to a conscious policy decision of the Board of Directors, based on objective factors such as delay in execution of projects, non-materialisation of the SCCL contract, and availability of surplus manpower due to redeployment. Thus, the decision is supported by cogent and bona fide reasons, and cannot be termed arbitrary.
ii) The principle laid down in R.S. Mittal (supra 3) does not advance the case of the respondents. While it is true that the appointing authority cannot ignore a select panel without justification, the said judgment itself recognizes that a candidate has no vested right to appointment and that non- filling of vacancies is permissible for valid reasons. In the present case, the appellants have furnished valid and rational grounds for not filling the posts, rooted in administrative necessity and changed circumstances, and hence the action satisfies the test laid down therein.
iii) The decision in Manoj Manu (supra 6) is also distinguishable. That was a case where certain selected candidates did not join, and the vacancies arose within the same recruitment cycle before the process had attained finality, warranting operation of the reserve list. In the 17 present case, however, the appellants had already operated the merit list downward in a second phase of selection in 2017 and filled additional posts. The remaining vacancies are not merely non-joining vacancies but are the result of subsequent policy considerations and reassessment of actual requirements.
iv) The reliance on Narimetla Vamshi (supra 8) is misconceived. In that case, the Apex Court was dealing with a situation where candidates had not even completed the recruitment process, and the authorities had erroneously declined to call the next meritorious candidates, thereby leaving vacancies unfilled. In contrast, in the present case, the entire selection process was duly conducted in two phases, and a substantial number of candidates were appointed. The decision not to fill the remaining posts is based not on any rigid rule but on subsequent administrative and functional considerations, and therefore stands on a different footing.
v) The judgment in Dinesh Chandra Pandey (supra 5) pertains to disciplinary proceedings and principles of natural justice, and has no bearing on the issue relating to filling up of notified vacancies or operation of select lists, and is thus inapplicable to the facts of the present case. 18
vi) In Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra 7), the employer had failed to furnish any cogent or justifiable reason for not filling up the vacancies despite the existence of a valid panel. In contrast, in the present case, the appellants have placed on record clear and contemporaneous reasons, namely the non- materialisation of the SCCL project and delay in commissioning of new projects, which constitute valid administrative grounds.
vii) In Uzair Imran (supra 9), the employer had altered the eligibility criteria midstream, thereby prejudicing the candidate. No such situation arises in the present case, where the conditions of recruitment remained unchanged, and the decision in question pertains only to the extent of vacancies to be filled, which was expressly made subject to variation in the notification itself.
22. Furthermore, the contention of the respondents that the appellants have acted discriminatorily in not following the practice adopted by other power utilities is also devoid of merit. Each of the said utilities operates in a distinct sphere, with differing functional requirements, financial constraints, and project timelines. The decision-making process in one entity cannot be mechanically applied to another. The appellant-Corporation, being a generation company, is guided by considerations fundamentally different from 19 those applicable to transmission or distribution companies, and therefore, no claim of parity can be sustained on that basis.
23. At this juncture, it will not be out of the context to note that even on a factual plane, the claim of the respondents does not merit acceptance. The appellants have placed on record the merit position of the respondents that clearly indicates that they were placed far below in the order of merit in their respective categories, which is extracted hereunder:
A perusal of the above tabulated data demonstrates that a substantial number of candidates stood above the respondents, 20 and the available vacancies within each category were limited. Thus, even if the merit list were to be operated further, the respondents would not have fallen within the zone of consideration. This crucial aspect, which goes to the root of the matter, has not been adverted to by the learned Single Judge. Conclusion
24. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, requiring the appellants to consider the candidature of the respondents for appointment against the 42 posts arising out of the 2015 notification based on their merit and roster points, is unsustainable both in law and on facts. The decision of the Board of Directors not to proceed further with the recruitment process was a conscious and bona fide administrative decision, taken on the basis of relevant considerations and duly recorded in its proceedings. The respondents, who neither possess any vested right nor fall within the zone of consideration, cannot seek to compel the appellants to fill up posts which were, at the relevant point of time, found to be unnecessary. Therefore, the impugned direction warrants interference.
25. Accordingly, W.A.Nos.294, 297, 301 and 334 of 2025 are allowed. The common order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.42734 & 45061 of 2017 and 18962 & 20048 of 2018 is hereby set aside.
21
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No costs.
__________________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ __________________________________ G.M. MOHIUDDIN, J Date: 26.03.2026 ssp